Ken Burns Roosevelt Documentary

[Synthaholic]

Isolationists were in both parties not just Republicans. Half of the country was divided on the war issues.

Very true. I would even say that half is being generous. Most of the country wanted nothing to do with the war in Europe.

That's where FDR's leadership came into play. He knew it was coming our way, especially if Britain fell.

That ideology went out the window when the Japs bombed Pearl Harbor, so no we would not be speaking or typing in German or Japanese no matter who was in the White House.

Do you have any clue what our military strength was before FDR built it up to send equipment to Britain and the USSR? It was pathetic. Our experience in WWI turned the country against spending on the military, and the policies of Coolidge and Hoover during the 1920s had no emphasis on defense spending.

Had FDR not used his power to ramp up the military on behalf of Britain and the Soviets (and to get Americans working), the Japanese would have rolled right over us.

You really need to watch this documentary.

Whenever America is attacked we all come together and agree on war, against anyone who attacks us, be it in WWII or the World Trade Center.

BENGHAZI!!!!!!!

Well, that was easy.

That was not on American Soil

Oh, so now you are qualifying your previous statement?

What's next: "Whenever America is attacked (on American soil) we all come together (as long as the president is a Republican)?

 

[Synthaholic]

Isolationists were in both parties not just Republicans. Half of the country was divided on the war issues.

Very true. I would even say that half is being generous. Most of the country wanted nothing to do with the war in Europe.

That's where FDR's leadership came into play. He knew it was coming our way, especially if Britain fell.

That ideology went out the window when the Japs bombed Pearl Harbor, so no we would not be speaking or typing in German or Japanese no matter who was in the White House.

Do you have any clue what our military strength was before FDR built it up to send equipment to Britain and the USSR? It was pathetic. Our experience in WWI turned the country against spending on the military, and the policies of Coolidge and Hoover during the 1920s had no emphasis on defense spending.

Had FDR not used his power to ramp up the military on behalf of Britain and the Soviets (and to get Americans working), the Japanese would have rolled right over us.

You really need to watch this documentary.

Whenever America is attacked we all come together and agree on war, against anyone who attacks us, be it in WWII or the World Trade Center.

BENGHAZI!!!!!!!

Well, that was easy.

I did watch it and yes our military strength was pathetic.
The majority of Americans were for the war after Pearl Harbor was bombed.
I don't know what you think I said but Americans were against the war because of WWI until after Pearl Harbor.

Well, thank you for that. It's exactly what I said.

My point is that if FDR had not started to build the military defense industry to help Britain and the Soviets, we would have been unable to respond to Pearl Harbor in any effective way. It takes years to ramp that industry up, and change auto factories into tank factories, etc.

Even with the buildup, it was a close war. Japan and Germany were not paper tigers.

 

[Discombobulated]

That is his problem. He attended government schools and believed all that bullshit they told him.

And your problem is that you read some stupid shit on a web site and called it history.

Oh please....if you bothered to educate yourself, as some us did decades ago, about FDR's betrayal and horrendous leadership, you would know how foolish your position is.

It is unbelievable in this day and age, when numerous historians, experts, and individuals close to FDR have exposed the truth about him, that dunces like you still exist.

Even though you have failed to research FDR, commonsense should tell you he was a disgusting tyrant, fool, and a traitor.

It merely proves how powerful the state is. It can brainwash many who are incapable of thinking and who stubbornly refuse to accept the truth, but chose to accept statist propaganda.

Yes I understand you've learned a lot from web sites.

 

[Synthaholic]

FDR didn't have to do much arm-twisting to get Detroit (THE ARSENAL FOR DEMOCRACY) to convert from making cars and trucks to tanks and half-tracks. He could have nationalized them I suppose, but the BIG 4 gladly took the government contracts over their domestic customer's needs.....why not, the money was good and the money was certain. I know of no plans Hitler or Hirohito had of occupying the USA. They could have tried to blockade us but we made everything we needed domestically at the time

Someone had to have the forethought and the vision and the fortitude to offer those contracts, dope.

That was Roosevelt.

(the good ol days when our corporations gave a shit about their country). I'm not aware of the Germans having aircraft carrier capacity to bomb the eastern cities. The Japs could have given us fits west of the Rockies but would never have tried to land.

I agree. But tomorrow, you or one of your fellow wingnuts will defend corporations using inversion to get out of paying their corporate taxes. Or for moving their manufacturing to Asia, eliminating jobs for Americans.

 

[Flopper]

Burns is good at these documentaries. Most of the Roosevelt stuff I've seen many times, so none of it is new, but it's nice to have it gathered in all together like that and in sequence and narrated.

I agree.

I watched this show, loved it. But I was left wondering about the media NOW. TMZ and every paparazzi under god's green earth would have shouted out every failure, every indiscretion and the fact FDR had a physical disability since 1921....Why did the media have so much discretion then and none NOW?

I agree. The media then would never print anything detremental to the POTUS.

Today Roosevelt would be out on his ass for all of his infidelities. Same goes for Kennedy.

Wonder if Burns will be mentioning those little factoids in his documentary??

Roosevelt was a great war time Prez but he did nothing to end the great depression. In fact the things he did do extended that depression. He wasn't as great as some would like to believe.

Oh, there were plenty things in the media that were detrimental to FDR, maybe not by today's standards but certain for that era. His policies were widely criticized in press. He was often referred to as dictator, a lier, the crazy man in the white house and a trader to his own class in the press. They also printed rumors that his disability was caused syphilis and any number of fatal diseases.

 

[Synthaholic]

Post #133

Why do you keep insisting that we revere Nazi newspapers the way you do?

We don't. We're Americans. What the hell are you?

 

[Discombobulated]

Burns is good at these documentaries. Most of the Roosevelt stuff I've seen many times, so none of it is new, but it's nice to have it gathered in all together like that and in sequence and narrated.

I agree.

I watched this show, loved it. But I was left wondering about the media NOW. TMZ and every paparazzi under god's green earth would have shouted out every failure, every indiscretion and the fact FDR had a physical disability since 1921....Why did the media have so much discretion then and none NOW?

I agree. The media then would never print anything detremental to the POTUS.

Today Roosevelt would be out on his ass for all of his infidelities. Same goes for Kennedy.

Wonder if Burns will be mentioning those little factoids in his documentary??

Roosevelt was a great war time Prez but he did nothing to end the great depression. In fact the things he did do extended that depression. He wasn't as great as some would like to believe.

Oh, there were plenty things in the media that were detrimental to FDR, maybe not by today's standards but certain for that era. His policies were widely criticized in press. He was often referred to as dictator, a lier, the crazy man in the white house and a trader to his own class in the press. They also printed rumors that his disability was caused syphilis and any number of fatal diseases.

Fortunately through the perspective of time we can now laugh at those kind of dim witted characterizations.

 

[Synthaholic]

Which countries did NOT recognize Stalin as the leader of the USSR?

What sort of moron relies on other nations to determine American policy....???

Oh...your sort of moron.

Answer the question!

Because I have another question after that - and you'll hide from that one, too.

 

[Discombobulated]

"7. He acquiesced to d-day, not where his generals suggested, but where Stalin insisted.
Again - prove that with verifiable facts. You won't. You can't."



Of course I can.

Everything I post is factual and correct.


Stalin insisted that D-Day be via western France....he wanted, and got, all of Eastern Europe under his control. So...he dissuaded FDR from an attack via Italy.

1. As to the question of Eisenhower's preference in attacking Fortress Europa, he stated in 1948: "My own recommendation, then as always, was that no operation should be taken in the Mediterranean except as a directly supporting move for the Channel attack and our planned deployment [of troops out of Italy] should proceed with all possible speed." Eisenhower, "Crusade in Europe," p.198-200

That was after FDR told him what to say.
But, his view before that.......

a. But, in 1943, before he was offered another star:
"Italy was the correct place in which to deploy our main forces and the objective should be the Valle of the PO.In no other area could we so well threaten the whole German structure including France, the Balkans and the Reich itself. Here also our air would be closer to vital objectives in Germany."
FRUS: The conferences at Cairo and Tehran, 1943, p.359-361
That report was published in "Foreign Relations of the United States" in 1961

Eisenhower's statement was to an audience in November 26, 1943....

" In December 1943, it was announced that Eisenhower would be Supreme Allied Commander in Europe."Military career of Dwight D. Eisenhower - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



2. "The actual plans for the invasion of Europe "was the brain child of the United States army," meaning General Eisenhower, a Marshall protégé, who was in charge of the planning (according to Stimson's book, "On Active Service in Peace and War").

The evidence is conclusive, however, that if Eisenhower's ideas had not been in full accord with those conceived before the war by Marshall and Hopkins, the planning assignment, the supreme command of the allied expeditionary forces, and the five stars that adorned his shoulders would have gone to some other general.
"The Twenty Year Revolution," p.119, Manly



So....Eisenhower was for it (attack via Italy) before he was against it (suddenly for attack via France,)




How's that? In your face!

You have no idea what any of this means. Italy was always the secondary diversionary front, invading France was always going to be the main effort. No one thought Germany was going to be conquered via Italy. No one.

Post # 133 destroyed you.

Now, step off.

Yeah! How can he possibly not believe a Nazi newspaper!!!!

Are you actually disputing that Nazi Germany, Mussolini's Italy, and FDR's New Deal were on the same page?????


What an imbecile.

1. The National Socialists hailed these ‘relief measures’ in ways you will recognize:
   1. May 11, 1933, the Nazi newspaper Volkischer Beobachter, (People’s Observer): “Roosevelt’s Dictatorial Recovery Measures.”
   2. 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.’
   3. 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 [Nazi]….one can assume that he feels considerable affinity with the National Socialist philosophy.”
   4. 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.
   1. 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.
   2. 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.

Did you ever attend ANY school ever????

So, because a Nazi propaganda newspaper writes an opinion about FDR, you assume it's the truth.
And you place more credence in the words of Benito Mussolini than in the deeds of our very own president.

No wonder people are not suprised anymore that Righties are unpatriotic traitors.

Just to think, you could have been the Berlin Rose of the 40s, with this kind of behaviour.

Golden, just golden.

Oh, and if you believe that shit, then you really ARE batshit crazy.

The fact that she takes her inspiration from fascist propaganda shouldn't surprise anyone.

 

[Synthaholic]

PoliticalChic has either:

1. Run from this thread as she so often does when she's getting her ass beat
2. Scouring Right-Wing propaganda to further cloud the facts
3. Legitimately not on the site because Real Life

I'm hoping #3, but her history is shaky.

I wiped up the floor with you......what more is there to say???

In your dreams.

The fact that you run from every direct question I ask you proves I've once again humiliated you.

You're the only one who doesn't realize it. Which is sad, but funny as shit.

 

[Flopper]

Hmmm, interesting theory.

However, the Soviet Union first started falling apart in 1990-1991, 2-3 years after Reagan left office.
Was he also responsible for what happened between 1989-1991?

And you are giving Reagan entirely the credit for all of this? Really?

Funny how Reagan is responsible for what happened right after his terms ended, but George W. Bush isn't responsible for what happened right after his terms ended.

#ConservativeHistory

Ask a democrat about the down-turning economy/recession George W. Bush inherited from Clinton and they deny it. None of this, however, has anything to do with Ken Burns' documentary as far as I can tell though

Bush inherited the weakest recession in American history with a -,3% fall in GDP. Without 9-11, there may have been no recession at all. By Comparison, Obama inherited the worst recession since the great depression

 

[Unkotare]

If FDR hadn't drastically built up our industry, which made tanks and planes for Britain and the USSR, Germany would have taken Europe, then attacked America from the East as Japan attacked from the west. Los Angeles, San Francisco, San Diego, New York, Washington, Boston, Philadelphia, Baltimore - all in ruins. Most likely Pittsburgh because of Big Steel, and Detroit, too, since it was the center of our large transportation industry.

All highly unlikely.

Care to explain why?

We had basically no defense against airplanes dropping bombs before the Roosevelt buildup in the 1930s. What was going to stop Germany and Japan? Farmers with hunting rifles shooting from the cornfields?

You're a military genius...

 

[sameech]

Hmmm, interesting theory.

However, the Soviet Union first started falling apart in 1990-1991, 2-3 years after Reagan left office.
Was he also responsible for what happened between 1989-1991?

And you are giving Reagan entirely the credit for all of this? Really?

Funny how Reagan is responsible for what happened right after his terms ended, but George W. Bush isn't responsible for what happened right after his terms ended.

#ConservativeHistory

Ask a democrat about the down-turning economy/recession George W. Bush inherited from Clinton and they deny it. None of this, however, has anything to do with Ken Burns' documentary as far as I can tell though

Bush inherited the weakest recession in American history with a -,3% fall in GDP. Without 9-11, there may have been no recession at all. By Comparison, Obama inherited the worst recession since the great depression

doesn't change that the economy was trending down before Bush took office and the worst recession since the great depression was the direct result of the Financial Services Modernization Act which was signed into law by Bill Clinton, but thanks for proving the point I was making.

 

[BullKurtz]

My point is that if FDR had not started to build the military defense industry to help Britain and the Soviets, we would have been unable to respond to Pearl Harbor in any effective way. It takes years to ramp that industry up, and change auto factories into tank factories, etc.

Even with the buildup, it was a close war. Japan and Germany were not paper tigers.

It took only WEEKS to bend the sheet metal into different shapes in Detroit. You're a rude idiot posing as some kind of authority on subjects you know nothing about.

 

[Flopper]

If FDR hadn't drastically built up our industry, which made tanks and planes for Britain and the USSR, Germany would have taken Europe, then attacked America from the East as Japan attacked from the west. Los Angeles, San Francisco, San Diego, New York, Washington, Boston, Philadelphia, Baltimore - all in ruins. Most likely Pittsburgh because of Big Steel, and Detroit, too, since it was the center of our large transportation industry.

All highly unlikely.

If the US had continued on it's path of isolationism, pacification, and disarmament which existed until about 1937, there's no doubt Britain would fallen and eventually Russia. It seems to me very unlikely, Hitler would have stopped at that point.

 

[Discombobulated]

My point is that if FDR had not started to build the military defense industry to help Britain and the Soviets, we would have been unable to respond to Pearl Harbor in any effective way. It takes years to ramp that industry up, and change auto factories into tank factories, etc.

Even with the buildup, it was a close war. Japan and Germany were not paper tigers.

It took only WEEKS to bend the sheet metal into different shapes in Detroit. You're a rude idiot posing as some kind of authority on subjects you know nothing about.

You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. Sheet metal? Are you fucking kidding or what? Is an M-1 rifle made out of sheet metal? How about a Sherman Tank? Did Ford start producing B-24s on December 8th?

 

[Flopper]

I think the reaction of Churchill, Hitler, and Stalin to FDR's death is interesting because it reveals more about themselves than it does about FDR. Churchill expressed his personal loss. Hitler was overjoyed and expected his death to reverse the war. Stalin thought he might have been assassinated.

 

[regent]

"Four Presidents and their six Secretaries of State for over a decade and a half held to this resolve," i.e., refusal to recognize the Soviet government. That was written by Herbert Hoover, one of those four Presidents. He wrote it in his Freedom Betrayed: Herbert Hoover's Secret History of the Second World War and Its Aftermathby George H. Nash, published posthumously, obviously, in 2011, pg 24-29.




When ever you’re ready just yell “check please.”

OK, before I expose your dishonesty yet again, answer the question that you avoided:

Which countries did NOT recognize Stalin as the leader of the USSR?

What sort of moron relies on other nations to determine American policy....???

Oh...your sort of moron.

I wonder how much of many of our policies are in response to the actions of other nations?

 

[Synthaholic]

Yeah! How can he possibly not believe a Nazi newspaper!!!!

Are you actually disputing that Nazi Germany, Mussolini's Italy, and FDR's New Deal were on the same page?????

Yes.

And I'm also laughing at you for thinking you can use a Nazi propaganda vehicle as your "proof". Of ANYTHING.

 

[Synthaholic]

And one final point: if PC thinks this is so earth-shattering and such a revelation, why don't we read about this in University courses? Why is it not in HS history books? Why does history still smile so very much upon FDR?

Answer: serious scholars know that clowns like PC are full of shit.

You are, of course, a disgusting low-life.

He asked good questions that you deflected from.