Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Unlock unbeatable offers today. Shop here: https://amzn.to/4cEkqYs 🎁
Yes
Allowing Stalin to do most of the fighting and dying
FDR had nothing to do with the Soviet Union being the biggest battle ground of WWII.
That was on STalin when he allied with Hitler to divide up Poland and gave himself a common border with Nazi Germany, a great idea that.
When the US entered the War, there were already millions of Nazi insider of the SU.
THere was never any danger of Germans actually attacking the United States physical territory.
THe US was able to produce and prepare for war in complete safety while the SU was moving factories to get them away from the Nazi advance.
The Soviets were the one who desperately needed aid so that they could drive genocidal invaders from their land.
THe US was the one in a position to help them tremendously. Or not.
This should have resulted in FDR having enormous leverage over Stalin.
Looking at history, I see no sign that FDR ever attempted to use that to the advantage of the US.
THe US was the one in a position to help them tremendously. Or not.
This should have resulted in FDR having enormous leverage over Stalin.
Looking at history, I see no sign that FDR ever attempted to use that to the advantage of the US.
That is an advantage? Allowing Hitler to win on the Eastern Front?
Leverage. I said leverage.
The Soviets were the ones in direct trouble with millions of genocidal invaders in their homeland killing their people.
The Americans were the ones who were in a position to help them.
This should have resulted in FDR having enormous leverage over Stalin.
Looking at history I see no sign that FDR ever attempted to use that to the advantage of the US.
Again you and PC don't understand leverage
FDR could have given them needed supplies or not. Denying supplies could have led to a Nazi victory....it was very close early in the war
What "leverage" did FDR have with lend/lease?
OK Joe, I'll give you $10 billion in supplies if you single handedly fight Hitler while I wait until the right time to invade...maybe two/ three years from now
But there are some conditions.You have to pay back the $10 billion and then surrender all the territory you gained and move back to your previous borders
Deal?
You talking as though FDR had to get Stalin to fight HItler.
He didn't. Hitler had taken care of that. Stalin was fighting Hitler and was going to keep fighting Hitler.
So, thus
"OK joe, I'll give you 10 billion in supplies, and open a second front to take pressure off the Red Army, and in return I want you to sign this piece of paper that says you will hold free elections in Eastern Europe after the war"
"...err, sure buddy, I'll hold free <choke, snicker> elections. You have my word or my name isn't JOseph Stalin".
That's the deal that FDR negotiated.
FDR had nothing to do with the Soviet Union being the biggest battle ground of WWII.
That was on STalin when he allied with Hitler to divide up Poland and gave himself a common border with Nazi Germany, a great idea that.
When the US entered the War, there were already millions of Nazi insider of the SU.
THere was never any danger of Germans actually attacking the United States physical territory.
THe US was able to produce and prepare for war in complete safety while the SU was moving factories to get them away from the Nazi advance.
The Soviets were the one who desperately needed aid so that they could drive genocidal invaders from their land.
THe US was the one in a position to help them tremendously. Or not.
This should have resulted in FDR having enormous leverage over Stalin.
Looking at history, I see no sign that FDR ever attempted to use that to the advantage of the US.
THe US was the one in a position to help them tremendously. Or not.
This should have resulted in FDR having enormous leverage over Stalin.
Looking at history, I see no sign that FDR ever attempted to use that to the advantage of the US.
That is an advantage? Allowing Hitler to win on the Eastern Front?
Leverage. I said leverage.
The Soviets were the ones in direct trouble with millions of genocidal invaders in their homeland killing their people.
The Americans were the ones who were in a position to help them.
This should have resulted in FDR having enormous leverage over Stalin.
Looking at history I see no sign that FDR ever attempted to use that to the advantage of the US.
Again you and PC don't understand leverage
FDR could have given them needed supplies or not. Denying supplies could have led to a Nazi victory....it was very close early in the war
What "leverage" did FDR have with lend/lease?
OK Joe, I'll give you $10 billion in supplies if you single handedly fight Hitler while I wait until the right time to invade...maybe two/ three years from now
But there are some conditions.You have to pay back the $10 billion and then surrender all the territory you gained and move back to your previous borders
Deal?
You talking as though FDR had to get Stalin to fight HItler.
He didn't. Hitler had taken care of that. Stalin was fighting Hitler and was going to keep fighting Hitler.
So, thus
"OK joe, I'll give you 10 billion in supplies, and open a second front to take pressure off the Red Army, and in return I want you to sign this piece of paper that says you will hold free elections in Eastern Europe after the war"
"...err, sure buddy, I'll hold free <choke, snicker> elections. You have my word or my name isn't JOseph Stalin".
That's the deal that FDR negotiated.
Laughable isn't it?
Expecting Stalin to hold free elections
Expecting Stalin to surrender captured territory after the war
So you are proposing that FDR should have withheld $10 billion in supplies with two possible outcomes
1. Stalin wins anyway and keeps all of his captured territory
2. Hitler wins and keeps the USSR and Western Europe
Which outcome do you prefer?
That is exactly what FDR did, Correll.
When Nazi Germany collapsed, Japan had shown no intention of surrendering, we did not know if the a bombs would work, we had no training divisions active in the states, and every Army division was overseas. Then English and French had no intention of ever fighting the Soviets, and Germany was rubbles.
What would you have done differently?
Considering it all, FDR did a pretty good job, and all the back seating driving is just that.Negotiated like I was looking out for the US post war interests.That is exactly what FDR did, Correll.
When Nazi Germany collapsed, Japan had shown no intention of surrendering, we did not know if the a bombs would work, we had no training divisions active in the states, and every Army division was overseas. Then English and French had no intention of ever fighting the Soviets, and Germany was rubbles.
What would you have done differently?
That is an advantage? Allowing Hitler to win on the Eastern Front?
Leverage. I said leverage.
The Soviets were the ones in direct trouble with millions of genocidal invaders in their homeland killing their people.
The Americans were the ones who were in a position to help them.
This should have resulted in FDR having enormous leverage over Stalin.
Looking at history I see no sign that FDR ever attempted to use that to the advantage of the US.
Again you and PC don't understand leverage
FDR could have given them needed supplies or not. Denying supplies could have led to a Nazi victory....it was very close early in the war
What "leverage" did FDR have with lend/lease?
OK Joe, I'll give you $10 billion in supplies if you single handedly fight Hitler while I wait until the right time to invade...maybe two/ three years from now
But there are some conditions.You have to pay back the $10 billion and then surrender all the territory you gained and move back to your previous borders
Deal?
You talking as though FDR had to get Stalin to fight HItler.
He didn't. Hitler had taken care of that. Stalin was fighting Hitler and was going to keep fighting Hitler.
So, thus
"OK joe, I'll give you 10 billion in supplies, and open a second front to take pressure off the Red Army, and in return I want you to sign this piece of paper that says you will hold free elections in Eastern Europe after the war"
"...err, sure buddy, I'll hold free <choke, snicker> elections. You have my word or my name isn't JOseph Stalin".
That's the deal that FDR negotiated.
Laughable isn't it?
Expecting Stalin to hold free elections
Expecting Stalin to surrender captured territory after the war
So you are proposing that FDR should have withheld $10 billion in supplies with two possible outcomes
1. Stalin wins anyway and keeps all of his captured territory
2. Hitler wins and keeps the USSR and Western Europe
Which outcome do you prefer?
I would hope that someone who was President of the United States could use his power and leverage and diplomacy to get an outcome better than either of those.
If even East Germany could have been flipped over into the Western Camp, the Cold War would have been far less scary.
Between the time he took office, and the time he left office (the hard way)....That scumbag lied to the American people (not to mention his wife), played throw-spaghetti-at-the-wall with economic programs, burdened future generations with impossible obligations, threatened our very form of government, threw over 100,000 innocent people - mostly American citizens - into concentration camps on American soil, and played the willing, useful idiot to communist murderers.
America went from ......... to .............
Fill in the blanks.
I would fill them in as follows.
America went from economic upheaval to being the strongest nation on Earth, ever.
Are you going to tell me he had nothing to do with that?
But let's take your complaints one by one.
Name a president that never lied to his wife or the American people. Did Regan not lie to the American people about Iran Contra? Nixon lie about Watergate?
What you call "throw-spaghetti-at-the-wall with economic programs" were economic programs that created infrastructure we still have today, and not for much longer if the Republicans refuse to allow the maintenance of it.
The 100,000 Japanese that were put in interment camps were not subject to extermination and starvation like the Jews were in concentration camps. In fact, before the war was over units of Japanese soldiers were recruited from the internment camps, and served with distinction in Italy. Resentments from those interned still exist for some today. I know, I live here in the Sacramento Valley where they cleared them all out in 1941, but you can't blame all of it happening on Roosevelt, and you can't blame him for not putting a stop to it when it happened. It's no different than how George Bush invaded Iraq on bad intelligence, except for the fact that 4000 Japanese didn't die because of what turned out to be a mistake.
Your "useful idiot to communist murderers' is both foundationless and irrational
Running for re election on a "He kept us out of war" theme, when he knew he wanted to get us into WWII, is a pretty big lie.
And his apparent lack of concern for the Post War balance of power is both founded and completely rational.
It seems he was completely focused on the short term, ie winning the war against the Nazi.
Which is sort of understandable. WWII, tens of thousands of Americans dying...
BUT...
He was President. Looking at the big picture and the long term was his job more than anyone else's.
He did seem to drop the ball on that one.
You keep harping on the Post War balance of power nonsense
Postwar, the US had.....
The strongest military and dominant Navy
The only untouched economy in the world
Massive production capability
The only atomic bomb
How much more in the balance of power did you want FDR to give you?
"Balance of Power nonsense"?
The soviet occupation of Eastern Europe, with it's huge army, that was only possible because of the manpower freed up by Lend Lease, led directly to the Cold War and generations of nuclear standoff.
If something had every gone wrong, it could have been the End of the World.
NOt to mention the Korean and Vietnamese Wars, and dozens of little proxy conflicts that destroyed whole nations.
The Soviets occupied Eastern Europe because their armies conquered it. Removing them from that territory would have killed a million American soldiers
As it is, the Soviet empire crumbled without a shot
Looks like FDR was right again
.
Do you know what you're doing?Between the time he took office, and the time he left office (the hard way)....
America went from ......... to .............
Fill in the blanks.
I would fill them in as follows.
America went from economic upheaval to being the strongest nation on Earth, ever.
Are you going to tell me he had nothing to do with that?
But let's take your complaints one by one.
Name a president that never lied to his wife or the American people. Did Regan not lie to the American people about Iran Contra? Nixon lie about Watergate?
What you call "throw-spaghetti-at-the-wall with economic programs" were economic programs that created infrastructure we still have today, and not for much longer if the Republicans refuse to allow the maintenance of it.
The 100,000 Japanese that were put in interment camps were not subject to extermination and starvation like the Jews were in concentration camps. In fact, before the war was over units of Japanese soldiers were recruited from the internment camps, and served with distinction in Italy. Resentments from those interned still exist for some today. I know, I live here in the Sacramento Valley where they cleared them all out in 1941, but you can't blame all of it happening on Roosevelt, and you can't blame him for not putting a stop to it when it happened. It's no different than how George Bush invaded Iraq on bad intelligence, except for the fact that 4000 Japanese didn't die because of what turned out to be a mistake.
Your "useful idiot to communist murderers' is both foundationless and irrational
Running for re election on a "He kept us out of war" theme, when he knew he wanted to get us into WWII, is a pretty big lie.
And his apparent lack of concern for the Post War balance of power is both founded and completely rational.
It seems he was completely focused on the short term, ie winning the war against the Nazi.
Which is sort of understandable. WWII, tens of thousands of Americans dying...
BUT...
He was President. Looking at the big picture and the long term was his job more than anyone else's.
He did seem to drop the ball on that one.
You keep harping on the Post War balance of power nonsense
Postwar, the US had.....
The strongest military and dominant Navy
The only untouched economy in the world
Massive production capability
The only atomic bomb
How much more in the balance of power did you want FDR to give you?
"Balance of Power nonsense"?
The soviet occupation of Eastern Europe, with it's huge army, that was only possible because of the manpower freed up by Lend Lease, led directly to the Cold War and generations of nuclear standoff.
If something had every gone wrong, it could have been the End of the World.
NOt to mention the Korean and Vietnamese Wars, and dozens of little proxy conflicts that destroyed whole nations.
What you are doing, is simply blaming every mistake FDR ever made, and any unintended negative consequence that came out of a global conflict, squarely on FDR...just exactly like the GOP does today with Obama. And why not, the same GOP strategy organizations came up with all these revisions of history, dictate the campaigns against Democrats today. What you're saying is not being said by historians or journalists, it's being contrived by political consultants with communications degrees hire by the GOP.
Look at what you wrote again.
You blamed Vietnam on FDR.
Vietnam played out the way it did because of French reluctance to admit their colonial claims to the region were not viable post war. Then Eisenhower, and then Kennedy.
The Cold War grew out of the end of WWII.
Looking back I can see no evidence that FDR gave any thought to the post war balance of power.
Presidents are supposed to think ahead.
When the Germans surrendered, and we met Russian troops on the Elbe River, FDR was dead.DId FDR have any leverage over Stalin?
Yes
Allowing Stalin to do most of the fighting and dying
FDR had nothing to do with the Soviet Union being the biggest battle ground of WWII.
That was on STalin when he allied with Hitler to divide up Poland and gave himself a common border with Nazi Germany, a great idea that.
When the US entered the War, there were already millions of Nazi insider of the SU.
THere was never any danger of Germans actually attacking the United States physical territory.
THe US was able to produce and prepare for war in complete safety while the SU was moving factories to get them away from the Nazi advance.
The Soviets were the one who desperately needed aid so that they could drive genocidal invaders from their land.
THe US was the one in a position to help them tremendously. Or not.
This should have resulted in FDR having enormous leverage over Stalin.
Looking at history, I see no sign that FDR ever attempted to use that to the advantage of the US.
THe US was the one in a position to help them tremendously. Or not.
This should have resulted in FDR having enormous leverage over Stalin.
Looking at history, I see no sign that FDR ever attempted to use that to the advantage of the US.
That is an advantage? Allowing Hitler to win on the Eastern Front?
Leverage. I said leverage.
The Soviets were the ones in direct trouble with millions of genocidal invaders in their homeland killing their people.
The Americans were the ones who were in a position to help them.
This should have resulted in FDR having enormous leverage over Stalin.
Looking at history I see no sign that FDR ever attempted to use that to the advantage of the US.
It was the carving up of Europe, and the Nuremberg trials that got Stalin's dander up. American intelligence and the diplomatic corp had little time to devote to policing Stalin's horrific human rights record during the final days of the war.
In post war Europe, the Americans were demobilizing, and heading out as quick as they could to continue fighting the Japanese on the opposite side of the world. What kind of moron would have stayed to fight a country that just took a great deal of heat off of the UK, France, and the USA? When you understand the period, it becomes painfully simple how unfounded your observations are
That is an advantage? Allowing Hitler to win on the Eastern Front?
Leverage. I said leverage.
The Soviets were the ones in direct trouble with millions of genocidal invaders in their homeland killing their people.
The Americans were the ones who were in a position to help them.
This should have resulted in FDR having enormous leverage over Stalin.
Looking at history I see no sign that FDR ever attempted to use that to the advantage of the US.
Again you and PC don't understand leverage
FDR could have given them needed supplies or not. Denying supplies could have led to a Nazi victory....it was very close early in the war
What "leverage" did FDR have with lend/lease?
OK Joe, I'll give you $10 billion in supplies if you single handedly fight Hitler while I wait until the right time to invade...maybe two/ three years from now
But there are some conditions.You have to pay back the $10 billion and then surrender all the territory you gained and move back to your previous borders
Deal?
You talking as though FDR had to get Stalin to fight HItler.
He didn't. Hitler had taken care of that. Stalin was fighting Hitler and was going to keep fighting Hitler.
So, thus
"OK joe, I'll give you 10 billion in supplies, and open a second front to take pressure off the Red Army, and in return I want you to sign this piece of paper that says you will hold free elections in Eastern Europe after the war"
"...err, sure buddy, I'll hold free <choke, snicker> elections. You have my word or my name isn't JOseph Stalin".
That's the deal that FDR negotiated.
Laughable isn't it?
Expecting Stalin to hold free elections
Expecting Stalin to surrender captured territory after the war
So you are proposing that FDR should have withheld $10 billion in supplies with two possible outcomes
1. Stalin wins anyway and keeps all of his captured territory
2. Hitler wins and keeps the USSR and Western Europe
Which outcome do you prefer?
I would hope that someone who was President of the United States could use his power and leverage and diplomacy to get an outcome better than either of those.
If even East Germany could have been flipped over into the Western Camp, the Cold War would have been far less scary.
You have not studied WWII or post-war history then.The Cold War grew out of the end of WWII. Looking back I can see no evidence that FDR gave any thought to the post war balance of power. Presidents are supposed to think ahead.
Oh, so you are aware of actions he took to in to effect that Post War Balance of Power?
SO, share with us. What was the best one?
Atomic Bomb
The US monopoly on the Bomb lasted FOUR YEARS.
You position is rank with things that never happened, false or misleading conclusions, or baselss premises.When the Germans surrendered, and we met Russian troops on the Elbe River, FDR was dead.Yes
Allowing Stalin to do most of the fighting and dying
FDR had nothing to do with the Soviet Union being the biggest battle ground of WWII.
That was on STalin when he allied with Hitler to divide up Poland and gave himself a common border with Nazi Germany, a great idea that.
When the US entered the War, there were already millions of Nazi insider of the SU.
THere was never any danger of Germans actually attacking the United States physical territory.
THe US was able to produce and prepare for war in complete safety while the SU was moving factories to get them away from the Nazi advance.
The Soviets were the one who desperately needed aid so that they could drive genocidal invaders from their land.
THe US was the one in a position to help them tremendously. Or not.
This should have resulted in FDR having enormous leverage over Stalin.
Looking at history, I see no sign that FDR ever attempted to use that to the advantage of the US.
THe US was the one in a position to help them tremendously. Or not.
This should have resulted in FDR having enormous leverage over Stalin.
Looking at history, I see no sign that FDR ever attempted to use that to the advantage of the US.
That is an advantage? Allowing Hitler to win on the Eastern Front?
Leverage. I said leverage.
The Soviets were the ones in direct trouble with millions of genocidal invaders in their homeland killing their people.
The Americans were the ones who were in a position to help them.
This should have resulted in FDR having enormous leverage over Stalin.
Looking at history I see no sign that FDR ever attempted to use that to the advantage of the US.
It was the carving up of Europe, and the Nuremberg trials that got Stalin's dander up. American intelligence and the diplomatic corp had little time to devote to policing Stalin's horrific human rights record during the final days of the war.
In post war Europe, the Americans were demobilizing, and heading out as quick as they could to continue fighting the Japanese on the opposite side of the world. What kind of moron would have stayed to fight a country that just took a great deal of heat off of the UK, France, and the USA? When you understand the period, it becomes painfully simple how unfounded your observations are
Got "Stalin's dander up"?
Stalin was a warmonger conquering his neighbors before WWII.
It wasn't the Nuremberg trials that made him an expansionist.
And I've been asking about the use of the leverage that the US had over the SU.
Pretending the only possible policy choices were giving Stalin a completely free hand or War is a false choice.
You have not studied WWII or post-war history then.The Cold War grew out of the end of WWII. Looking back I can see no evidence that FDR gave any thought to the post war balance of power. Presidents are supposed to think ahead.
Oh, so you are aware of actions he took to in to effect that Post War Balance of Power?
SO, share with us. What was the best one?
Atomic Bomb
The US monopoly on the Bomb lasted FOUR YEARS.You position is rank with things that never happened, false or misleading conclusions, or baselss premises.When the Germans surrendered, and we met Russian troops on the Elbe River, FDR was dead.FDR had nothing to do with the Soviet Union being the biggest battle ground of WWII.
That was on STalin when he allied with Hitler to divide up Poland and gave himself a common border with Nazi Germany, a great idea that.
When the US entered the War, there were already millions of Nazi insider of the SU.
THere was never any danger of Germans actually attacking the United States physical territory.
THe US was able to produce and prepare for war in complete safety while the SU was moving factories to get them away from the Nazi advance.
The Soviets were the one who desperately needed aid so that they could drive genocidal invaders from their land.
THe US was the one in a position to help them tremendously. Or not.
This should have resulted in FDR having enormous leverage over Stalin.
Looking at history, I see no sign that FDR ever attempted to use that to the advantage of the US.
THe US was the one in a position to help them tremendously. Or not.
This should have resulted in FDR having enormous leverage over Stalin.
Looking at history, I see no sign that FDR ever attempted to use that to the advantage of the US.
That is an advantage? Allowing Hitler to win on the Eastern Front?
Leverage. I said leverage.
The Soviets were the ones in direct trouble with millions of genocidal invaders in their homeland killing their people.
The Americans were the ones who were in a position to help them.
This should have resulted in FDR having enormous leverage over Stalin.
Looking at history I see no sign that FDR ever attempted to use that to the advantage of the US.
It was the carving up of Europe, and the Nuremberg trials that got Stalin's dander up. American intelligence and the diplomatic corp had little time to devote to policing Stalin's horrific human rights record during the final days of the war.
In post war Europe, the Americans were demobilizing, and heading out as quick as they could to continue fighting the Japanese on the opposite side of the world. What kind of moron would have stayed to fight a country that just took a great deal of heat off of the UK, France, and the USA? When you understand the period, it becomes painfully simple how unfounded your observations are
Got "Stalin's dander up"?
Stalin was a warmonger conquering his neighbors before WWII.
It wasn't the Nuremberg trials that made him an expansionist.
And I've been asking about the use of the leverage that the US had over the SU.
Pretending the only possible policy choices were giving Stalin a completely free hand or War is a false choice.
It's really hard to figure where to begin unwinding all of them
Do you know what you're doing?Running for re election on a "He kept us out of war" theme, when he knew he wanted to get us into WWII, is a pretty big lie.
And his apparent lack of concern for the Post War balance of power is both founded and completely rational.
It seems he was completely focused on the short term, ie winning the war against the Nazi.
Which is sort of understandable. WWII, tens of thousands of Americans dying...
BUT...
He was President. Looking at the big picture and the long term was his job more than anyone else's.
He did seem to drop the ball on that one.
You keep harping on the Post War balance of power nonsense
Postwar, the US had.....
The strongest military and dominant Navy
The only untouched economy in the world
Massive production capability
The only atomic bomb
How much more in the balance of power did you want FDR to give you?
"Balance of Power nonsense"?
The soviet occupation of Eastern Europe, with it's huge army, that was only possible because of the manpower freed up by Lend Lease, led directly to the Cold War and generations of nuclear standoff.
If something had every gone wrong, it could have been the End of the World.
NOt to mention the Korean and Vietnamese Wars, and dozens of little proxy conflicts that destroyed whole nations.
What you are doing, is simply blaming every mistake FDR ever made, and any unintended negative consequence that came out of a global conflict, squarely on FDR...just exactly like the GOP does today with Obama. And why not, the same GOP strategy organizations came up with all these revisions of history, dictate the campaigns against Democrats today. What you're saying is not being said by historians or journalists, it's being contrived by political consultants with communications degrees hire by the GOP.
Look at what you wrote again.
You blamed Vietnam on FDR.
Vietnam played out the way it did because of French reluctance to admit their colonial claims to the region were not viable post war. Then Eisenhower, and then Kennedy.
The Cold War grew out of the end of WWII.
Looking back I can see no evidence that FDR gave any thought to the post war balance of power.
Presidents are supposed to think ahead.
He did think ahead.
He thought of a world free of the Axis-powers. And his deeds led to exactly that happening.
What did you want from him, you fool, a 100 year plan?
Do you know what you're doing?You keep harping on the Post War balance of power nonsense
Postwar, the US had.....
The strongest military and dominant Navy
The only untouched economy in the world
Massive production capability
The only atomic bomb
How much more in the balance of power did you want FDR to give you?
"Balance of Power nonsense"?
The soviet occupation of Eastern Europe, with it's huge army, that was only possible because of the manpower freed up by Lend Lease, led directly to the Cold War and generations of nuclear standoff.
If something had every gone wrong, it could have been the End of the World.
NOt to mention the Korean and Vietnamese Wars, and dozens of little proxy conflicts that destroyed whole nations.
What you are doing, is simply blaming every mistake FDR ever made, and any unintended negative consequence that came out of a global conflict, squarely on FDR...just exactly like the GOP does today with Obama. And why not, the same GOP strategy organizations came up with all these revisions of history, dictate the campaigns against Democrats today. What you're saying is not being said by historians or journalists, it's being contrived by political consultants with communications degrees hire by the GOP.
Look at what you wrote again.
You blamed Vietnam on FDR.
Vietnam played out the way it did because of French reluctance to admit their colonial claims to the region were not viable post war. Then Eisenhower, and then Kennedy.
The Cold War grew out of the end of WWII.
Looking back I can see no evidence that FDR gave any thought to the post war balance of power.
Presidents are supposed to think ahead.
He did think ahead.
He thought of a world free of the Axis-powers. And his deeds led to exactly that happening.
What did you want from him, you fool, a 100 year plan?
100 year plan? THat's a strawman.
There is no evidence from his actions that FDR thought beyond the end of the war.
THat is a failing on his part.
You have not studied WWII or post-war history then.The Cold War grew out of the end of WWII. Looking back I can see no evidence that FDR gave any thought to the post war balance of power. Presidents are supposed to think ahead.
Oh, so you are aware of actions he took to in to effect that Post War Balance of Power?
SO, share with us. What was the best one?
Atomic Bomb
The US monopoly on the Bomb lasted FOUR YEARS.You position is rank with things that never happened, false or misleading conclusions, or baselss premises.When the Germans surrendered, and we met Russian troops on the Elbe River, FDR was dead.FDR had nothing to do with the Soviet Union being the biggest battle ground of WWII.
That was on STalin when he allied with Hitler to divide up Poland and gave himself a common border with Nazi Germany, a great idea that.
When the US entered the War, there were already millions of Nazi insider of the SU.
THere was never any danger of Germans actually attacking the United States physical territory.
THe US was able to produce and prepare for war in complete safety while the SU was moving factories to get them away from the Nazi advance.
The Soviets were the one who desperately needed aid so that they could drive genocidal invaders from their land.
THe US was the one in a position to help them tremendously. Or not.
This should have resulted in FDR having enormous leverage over Stalin.
Looking at history, I see no sign that FDR ever attempted to use that to the advantage of the US.
THe US was the one in a position to help them tremendously. Or not.
This should have resulted in FDR having enormous leverage over Stalin.
Looking at history, I see no sign that FDR ever attempted to use that to the advantage of the US.
That is an advantage? Allowing Hitler to win on the Eastern Front?
Leverage. I said leverage.
The Soviets were the ones in direct trouble with millions of genocidal invaders in their homeland killing their people.
The Americans were the ones who were in a position to help them.
This should have resulted in FDR having enormous leverage over Stalin.
Looking at history I see no sign that FDR ever attempted to use that to the advantage of the US.
It was the carving up of Europe, and the Nuremberg trials that got Stalin's dander up. American intelligence and the diplomatic corp had little time to devote to policing Stalin's horrific human rights record during the final days of the war.
In post war Europe, the Americans were demobilizing, and heading out as quick as they could to continue fighting the Japanese on the opposite side of the world. What kind of moron would have stayed to fight a country that just took a great deal of heat off of the UK, France, and the USA? When you understand the period, it becomes painfully simple how unfounded your observations are
Got "Stalin's dander up"?
Stalin was a warmonger conquering his neighbors before WWII.
It wasn't the Nuremberg trials that made him an expansionist.
And I've been asking about the use of the leverage that the US had over the SU.
Pretending the only possible policy choices were giving Stalin a completely free hand or War is a false choice.
It's really hard to figure where to begin unwinding all of them
You have not studied WWII or post-war history then.
Oh, so you are aware of actions he took to in to effect that Post War Balance of Power?
SO, share with us. What was the best one?
Atomic Bomb
The US monopoly on the Bomb lasted FOUR YEARS.You position is rank with things that never happened, false or misleading conclusions, or baselss premises.When the Germans surrendered, and we met Russian troops on the Elbe River, FDR was dead.That is an advantage? Allowing Hitler to win on the Eastern Front?
Leverage. I said leverage.
The Soviets were the ones in direct trouble with millions of genocidal invaders in their homeland killing their people.
The Americans were the ones who were in a position to help them.
This should have resulted in FDR having enormous leverage over Stalin.
Looking at history I see no sign that FDR ever attempted to use that to the advantage of the US.
It was the carving up of Europe, and the Nuremberg trials that got Stalin's dander up. American intelligence and the diplomatic corp had little time to devote to policing Stalin's horrific human rights record during the final days of the war.
In post war Europe, the Americans were demobilizing, and heading out as quick as they could to continue fighting the Japanese on the opposite side of the world. What kind of moron would have stayed to fight a country that just took a great deal of heat off of the UK, France, and the USA? When you understand the period, it becomes painfully simple how unfounded your observations are
Got "Stalin's dander up"?
Stalin was a warmonger conquering his neighbors before WWII.
It wasn't the Nuremberg trials that made him an expansionist.
And I've been asking about the use of the leverage that the US had over the SU.
Pretending the only possible policy choices were giving Stalin a completely free hand or War is a false choice.
It's really hard to figure where to begin unwinding all of them
My position is that FDR did not have any policies to address the Post War balance of power.
The promise he got from Stalin was obviously worthless.
Perhaps he had some foolish dreams of the UN ending war...
YOu want to unwind that? Explain to me why he didn't care about the Post War scenario. Explain to me why he though it would be fine. Or explain to me what he did to limit Soviet expansion that I missed or didn't understand.
FDR never saw the final determining card for the end of WWII. He suspected what it was, but could not know for sure how it would play and what impacts it would have. The card was not revealed until July 16, three months after his death.You have not studied WWII or post-war history then.
Oh, so you are aware of actions he took to in to effect that Post War Balance of Power?
SO, share with us. What was the best one?
Atomic Bomb
The US monopoly on the Bomb lasted FOUR YEARS.You position is rank with things that never happened, false or misleading conclusions, or baselss premises.When the Germans surrendered, and we met Russian troops on the Elbe River, FDR was dead.That is an advantage? Allowing Hitler to win on the Eastern Front?
Leverage. I said leverage.
The Soviets were the ones in direct trouble with millions of genocidal invaders in their homeland killing their people.
The Americans were the ones who were in a position to help them.
This should have resulted in FDR having enormous leverage over Stalin.
Looking at history I see no sign that FDR ever attempted to use that to the advantage of the US.
It was the carving up of Europe, and the Nuremberg trials that got Stalin's dander up. American intelligence and the diplomatic corp had little time to devote to policing Stalin's horrific human rights record during the final days of the war.
In post war Europe, the Americans were demobilizing, and heading out as quick as they could to continue fighting the Japanese on the opposite side of the world. What kind of moron would have stayed to fight a country that just took a great deal of heat off of the UK, France, and the USA? When you understand the period, it becomes painfully simple how unfounded your observations are
Got "Stalin's dander up"?
Stalin was a warmonger conquering his neighbors before WWII.
It wasn't the Nuremberg trials that made him an expansionist.
And I've been asking about the use of the leverage that the US had over the SU.
Pretending the only possible policy choices were giving Stalin a completely free hand or War is a false choice.
It's really hard to figure where to begin unwinding all of them
My position is that FDR did not have any policies to address the Post War balance of power.
The promise he got from Stalin was obviously worthless.
Perhaps he had some foolish dreams of the UN ending war...
YOu want to unwind that? Explain to me why he didn't care about the Post War scenario. Explain to me why he though it would be fine. Or explain to me what he did to limit Soviet expansion that I missed or didn't understand.
Do you know what you're doing?"Balance of Power nonsense"?
The soviet occupation of Eastern Europe, with it's huge army, that was only possible because of the manpower freed up by Lend Lease, led directly to the Cold War and generations of nuclear standoff.
If something had every gone wrong, it could have been the End of the World.
NOt to mention the Korean and Vietnamese Wars, and dozens of little proxy conflicts that destroyed whole nations.
What you are doing, is simply blaming every mistake FDR ever made, and any unintended negative consequence that came out of a global conflict, squarely on FDR...just exactly like the GOP does today with Obama. And why not, the same GOP strategy organizations came up with all these revisions of history, dictate the campaigns against Democrats today. What you're saying is not being said by historians or journalists, it's being contrived by political consultants with communications degrees hire by the GOP.
Look at what you wrote again.
You blamed Vietnam on FDR.
Vietnam played out the way it did because of French reluctance to admit their colonial claims to the region were not viable post war. Then Eisenhower, and then Kennedy.
The Cold War grew out of the end of WWII.
Looking back I can see no evidence that FDR gave any thought to the post war balance of power.
Presidents are supposed to think ahead.
He did think ahead.
He thought of a world free of the Axis-powers. And his deeds led to exactly that happening.
What did you want from him, you fool, a 100 year plan?
100 year plan? THat's a strawman.
There is no evidence from his actions that FDR thought beyond the end of the war.
THat is a failing on his part.
What actions did you expect for the end of the war and how do you think FDR could have acheived them?
