Roosevelt....the Un-Reagan

[Camp]

While securing the creation of the most powerful and richest country in world history, FDR built infrastructure that continues to serve the public to this very day. This holiday weekend, 80 years and more after he began the New Deal work projects, paid for with public loans and paid back by workers returning from WWII, citizens will travel over bridges, highways and tunnels originally built during his administration. They will send and receive cards and packages that will flow through postal facilities built during his era, including hundreds of little post offices in small town America. We have one of those Post Office facilities in my town. A small little brick building with concrete and white painted wood trim. Classical little American hometown post office. Built by people with great pride and thanks for the jobs they were given during the Great Depression.

The post office is loosing billions, and Social security is unsustainable. Our infrastructure is falling apart. Cut government, cut the bureaucracy, shrink the size of government. Our infrastructure would be in much better shape, if we used all that money supporting the leftist's big government, bureaucracy to improve it and repair it

Reagan the Un- Roosevelt

The Post Office is not losing money from the facilities bought and paid for almost a century ago. If somewhere along the line between the 1930's and the present day someone has mismanaged, abused or corrupted the systems oR programs that FDR created in the 30's and 40's it is unfair to blame him. He died in 1945. Reagan decided to save Social Security in the 80's. Whose fault is it that in needs another tune-up 30 or 40 years after Reagan gave it one?
Part of the FDR greatness was the way he financed all that infrastructure. He used genius to finance those projects and pay for them. He devised a way for small government, specifically states, to borrow funds, select projects and pay for the loans with state funds garnered from taxes after WWII.

 

[Camp]

Meantime, FDR has major Memorials in two cities, Washington DC and New York .....

More logical fallacy.

No, proof that money talks and bullshit walks. FDR Memorials were financed privately with citizen support and the same has not yet been available for a Reagan legacy. FDR got an island in New York and Reagan got a sidewalk statue in front of the US Embassy in Poland.

 

[Unkotare]

Meantime, FDR has major Memorials in two cities, Washington DC and New York .....

More logical fallacy.

No, proof that money talks and bullshit walks. ......

Logical fallacy, you dope.

 

[Camp]

Meantime, FDR has major Memorials in two cities, Washington DC and New York .....

More logical fallacy.

No, proof that money talks and bullshit walks. ......

Logical fallacy, you dope.

What is it with you miserable people that have constant needs to call other people names? Do you not realize it is like a flashing sign that gives away your insecurities and lack of emotional strength or confident ego? What possible gratification could you get from calling an unknown anonymous person on a message board a dope? Why would you think it had any meaning?

 

[Unkotare]

Meantime, FDR has major Memorials in two cities, Washington DC and New York .....

More logical fallacy.

No, proof that money talks and bullshit walks. ......

Logical fallacy, you dope.

What is it with you miserable people that have constant needs to call other people names? Do you not realize it is like a flashing sign that gives away your insecurities and lack of emotional strength or confident ego? What possible gratification could you get from calling an unknown anonymous person on a message board a dope? Why would you think it had any meaning?

Stop being a dope anytime it gets too traumatic for you to hear the truth about yourself, dope.

 

[Syriusly]

11. And....never overlook the propaganda lie that either
a) we needed Stalin to defeat Hitler,
or b) without Roosevelt, Hitler would have beaten Stalin.
Nether comes close to the truth.

According to Stalin- without American assistance, Germany would have defeated the Soviet Union.

But I will humor you.

Tell me your alternative strategy on December 11, 1941- the United States is at war with Japan, Germany and Italy.

Tell me what you think FDR should have done differently.

Go for it.

Easy peasy, lemon squeezy!

1. What could, should have happened?
When the (anticipated) event that Hitler would attack Stalin's Russia, as they did June 21st, 1941,America should have done nothing...no more than relaxing restrictions on exports to the Russians...but at the same time securing a quid pro quo for further assistance! Lend-Lease should not have been the automatic and unlimited buffet that it turned into!

"Finally, should the Soviet regime fall,...we should refuse to recognize a Communist government-in-exile,leaving the path clear for establishment for a non-Communist government in Russia after the war." These were the words of Loy Henderson, Soviet and Eastern European affairs expert and Foreign Service officer, as quoted by Martin Weil in "A pretty good club: The founding fathers of the U.S. Foreign Service," p. 106.


2. In a letter to FDR, dated January 29, 1943, William Bullitt (Franklin D. Roosevelt appointed Bullitt the first US ambassador to the Soviet Union, a post that he filled from 1933 to 1936.)warned Roosevelt about what would happen if he continued pursuing the policies of appeasement toward Stalin that formed the foundation of the American war strategy. He pleaded with FDR not to 'permit our war to prevent Nazi domination of Europe to be turned into a war to establish Soviet domination of Europe.'

He predicted the Soviet annexation of half of Europe; George Kennan identified that letter as the earliest warning of what would be the result of FDR's policies.
"For the President Personal & Secret: Correspondence Between Franklin D. Roosevelt and William C. Bullitt," Orville H. Bullitt, p. 575-590


3. Hanson Baldwin, military critic of the New York Times, declares in his book, "Great Mistakes of the War:" 'There is no doubt whatsoever thatit would have been to the interest of Britain, the United States, and the world to have allowed and indeed to have encouraged-the world's two great dictatorships to fight each other to a frazzle.'
Baldwin writes that the United States put itself "in the role-at times a disgraceful role-of fearful suppliant and propitiating ally, anxious at nearly any cost to keep Russia fighting. In retrospect, how stupid!"



BTW....note how those last two words apply to you.

But isn't this the debate tactics that both sides utilize ?

And the double standard is pretty clear on this.

I don't agree with you on several points.

As an example....While Wallace appears to have been playing with half a deck, I don't know that he was communist or that you can state Roosevelt had a communist for a VP. However, there has always pretty clear evidence of his sympathies. Additionally, from what I recall...Wallace was kind of a whackjob religious nut.

But, you can't produce absolute, lock down tight explicit proof that such was the case. Short of an explicit admission on his part (under oath, truth syrum, and threat of death....of course), everyone will sit there and say that "you've yet to produce any proof".

Which is technically correct......your counter is that if it quacks like a duck......which is valid....but still allows others to room to step back in the face of pretty good evidence and say...."you have no proof".

And yet these same lying asswipes will smugly state that "Obama saved us from a depression"....you know the one we were never in. And when someone says that's more a matter of probability than strict fact....they piss all over themselves to show you how it is absolutely true (even though you can't prove it because it was not allowed to play out).

So, every time I read the attacks (and BTW rightwinger and Dot Com post an attack...I have to laugh....while it requires a connection....at least you make an argument....again I don't always agree with you....they on the other hand can barely manage to get their Saul Alinsky approved BS talking points onto the board in one piece.), I have to laugh hard at their baboon type crap flinging methods.

I appreciate your efforts....even when you are wrong.

I do enjoy watching your opposition wet themselves in their rush to show you how wrong you are absent the same proof they want you to produce.

And I appreciate your posts- even when you are wrong.

Like in this thread. I have enjoyed watching PC's fellow travelers and their efforts to explain how terrible that FDR left the United States the most powerful nation- and economy- in the world at his death.

So sad you have no idea what is right and what is wrong.

Maybe Santa will bring you a working brain for Christmas.

Ah thats so sweet....you still believe in Santa.....

 

[Syriusly]

While securing the creation of the most powerful and richest country in world history, FDR built infrastructure that continues to serve the public to this very day. This holiday weekend, 80 years and more after he began the New Deal work projects, paid for with public loans and paid back by workers returning from WWII, citizens will travel over bridges, highways and tunnels originally built during his administration. They will send and receive cards and packages that will flow through postal facilities built during his era, including hundreds of little post offices in small town America. We have one of those Post Office facilities in my town. A small little brick building with concrete and white painted wood trim. Classical little American hometown post office. Built by people with great pride and thanks for the jobs they were given during the Great Depression.

The post office is loosing billions, and Social security is unsustainable.A]

The Post office losing money? How could that be possible? Technology has remained constant since 1860 hasn't it?

I understand that many of you hate FDR for implementing Social Security- which the majority of retirees in America depend on.

Social security may be flawed- but with no FDR- under Hoover's guidance- there was nothing- no social security- no safety net for old people.

 

[Syriusly]

I really want to hear more about how terrible FDR was.

I acknowledge his most egregious and tragic decision- Japanese internment- something many Conservatives to this day applaud.

But the facts are very, very clear.

FDR was elected as the country was in a Depression with 25% unemployment, and a third or fourth rate military- and died as President- massively popular- with virtually no unemployment, with the United States being the most powerful country in the world, with the most powerful military in the world.

Please explain why all of that offends you?

 

[Jroc]

I really want to hear more about how terrible FDR was.

I acknowledge his most egregious and tragic decision- Japanese internment- something many Conservatives to this day applaud.

But the facts are very, very clear.

FDR was elected as the country was in a Depression with 25% unemployment, and a third or fourth rate military- and died as President- massively popular- with virtually no unemployment, with the United States being the most powerful country in the world, with the most powerful military in the world.

Please explain why all of that offends you?

FDR extended the depression. He didn't pull us out of anything

Two UCLA economists say they have figured out why the Great Depression dragged on for almost 15 years, and they blame a suspect previously thought to be beyond reproach: President Franklin D. Roosevelt.

After scrutinizing Roosevelt's record for four years, Harold L. Cole and Lee E. Ohanian conclude in a new study that New Deal policies signed into law 71 years ago thwarted economic recovery for seven long years.

"Why the Great Depression lasted so long has always been a great mystery, and because we never really knew the reason, we have always worried whether we would have another 10- to 15-year economic slump," said Ohanian, vice chair of UCLA's Department of Economics. "We found that a relapse isn't likely unless lawmakers gum up a recovery with ill-conceived stimulus policies."

http://newsroom.ucla.edu/releases/FDR-s-Policies-Prolonged-Depression-5409

Far from pulling the country out of the Great Depression by following Keynesian policies, FDR created policies that prolonged the depression until it was more than twice as long as any other depression in American history. Moreover, Roosevelt's ad hoc improvisations followed nothing as coherent as Keynesian economics.

To the extent that FDR followed the ideas of any economist, it was an obscure economist at the University of Wisconsin, who was disdained by other economists and who was regarded with contempt by John Maynard Keynes.

President Roosevelt's strong suit was politics, not economics. He played the political game both cleverly and ruthlessly, including using both the FBI and the Internal Revenue Service to harass and intimidate his critics and opponents.

It is not a pretty story. But we need to understand it if we want to avoid the ugly consequences of very similar policies today.

THOMAS SOWELL: FDR’s policies prolonged Great Depression

 

[Syriusly]

I really want to hear more about how terrible FDR was.

I acknowledge his most egregious and tragic decision- Japanese internment- something many Conservatives to this day applaud.

But the facts are very, very clear.

FDR was elected as the country was in a Depression with 25% unemployment, and a third or fourth rate military- and died as President- massively popular- with virtually no unemployment, with the United States being the most powerful country in the world, with the most powerful military in the world.

Please explain why all of that offends you?

FDR extended the depression. He didn't pull us out of anything

The fact is that when FDR came into office- unemployment was 25%- by 1940- it was down to 9%.
The fact is that when FDR died- the United States had gone from our countries worse depression to being the undisputed most powerful country in the world- the most powerful military and the most powerful economy.

And led us to victory over Japan, Germany and Italy.

Those are the facts. None of Hoover's efforts had done anything to change the direction the economy was going.

And he left us with:
Social Security
Unemployment Insurance
Bank Depositors Insurance.

Did FDR's policies prolong the Depression- perhaps- 2 or 3 economists believe he did. Many others believe he brought the country out of the Depression- there is no way to be sure- but we are sure what did happen.

 

[Syriusly]

I really want to hear more about how terrible FDR was.

I acknowledge his most egregious and tragic decision- Japanese internment- something many Conservatives to this day applaud.

But the facts are very, very clear.

FDR was elected as the country was in a Depression with 25% unemployment, and a third or fourth rate military- and died as President- massively popular- with virtually no unemployment, with the United States being the most powerful country in the world, with the most powerful military in the world.

Please explain why all of that offends you?

FDR extended the depression. He didn't pull us out of anything

Two UCLA economists say they have figured out why the Great Depression dragged on for almost 15 years, and they blame a suspect previously thought to be beyond reproach: President Franklin D. Roosevelt.

After scrutinizing Roosevelt's record for four years, Harold L. Cole and Lee E. Ohanian conclude in a new study that New Deal policies signed into law 71 years ago thwarted economic recovery for seven long years.

"Why the Great Depression lasted so long has always been a great mystery, and because we never really knew the reason, we have always worried whether we would have another 10- to 15-year economic slump," said Ohanian, vice chair of UCLA's Department of Economics. "We found that a relapse isn't likely unless lawmakers gum up a recovery with ill-conceived stimulus policies."

http://newsroom.ucla.edu/releases/FDR-s-Policies-Prolonged-Depression-5409

Far from pulling the country out of the Great Depression by following Keynesian policies, FDR created policies that prolonged the depression until it was more than twice as long as any other depression in American history. Moreover, Roosevelt's ad hoc improvisations followed nothing as coherent as Keynesian economics.

To the extent that FDR followed the ideas of any economist, it was an obscure economist at the University of Wisconsin, who was disdained by other economists and who was regarded with contempt by John Maynard Keynes.

President Roosevelt's strong suit was politics, not economics. He played the political game both cleverly and ruthlessly, including using both the FBI and the Internal Revenue Service to harass and intimidate his critics and opponents.

It is not a pretty story. But we need to understand it if we want to avoid the ugly consequences of very similar policies today.

THOMAS SOWELL: FDR’s policies prolonged Great Depression

The right-wing New Deal conniption fit

The government hired about 60 per cent of the unemployed in public works and conservation projects that planted a billion trees, saved the whooping crane, modernized rural America, and built such diverse projects as the Cathedral of Learning in Pittsburgh, the Montana state capitol, much of the Chicago lakefront, New York’s Lincoln Tunnel and Triborough Bridge complex, the Tennessee Valley Authority and the aircraft carriers Enterprise and Yorktown.


It also built or renovated 2,500 hospitals, 45,000 schools, 13,000 parks and playgrounds, 7,800 bridges, 700,000 miles of roads, and a thousand airfields. And it employed 50,000 teachers, rebuilt the country’s entire rural school system, and hired 3,000 writers, musicians, sculptors and painters, including Willem de Kooning and Jackson Pollock.




In other words, millions of men and women earned a living wage and self-respect and contributed mightily to the national infrastructure. But, according to the statistics as interpreted on the Wall Street Journal editorial page, they were unemployed.

Way back in 1976, economist Michael Darby exposed the absurdity of not counting WPA workers as “employed” in his paper “Three-and-a-Half Million U.S. Employees Have Been Mislaid: Or, an Explanation of Unemployment, 1934-1941.” More than 30 years ago, Darby observed that correctly counting those 3 and a half million people as employed workers effectively debunked “the ‘un-fact’ that recovery was extremely slow from 1934 through 1941. From 1933 to 1936, the corrected unemployment rate fell by nearly 5 percentage points per year…”
The bottom line conservative position on the New Deal is that, theoretically speaking, the economy would have returned to “normal” more quickly if FDR had refrained from interfering with the workings of the free market through his vast array of interventionist programs. Sadly for them, we never got a chance to find out, because the situation in 1933, when Roosevelt took office, demanded government action. Twenty-five percent of the nation was unemployed. Human suffering was immense. If the market had been left to work its problems out all by itself, further suffering in the near term would have been unimaginable. And not just unimaginable — but also politically unacceptable.



If the New Deal actually extended the Great Depression, we might wonder, why was Roosevelt reelected three times? One explanation would be that the general public is an idiot, and I must confess, I’ve leaned toward that point of view myself after viewing the aftermath of Election Day in the U.S. on a number of occasions over the last three decades. But another explanation could be that a majority of voters experienced material improvements in the quality of their lives as a result of New Deal programs. This is a point of enduring frustration to conservatives, and they’ve expended vast effort over the years in their attempt to rewrite history and convince us that what our grandparents knew was wrong — to the point that they’ve even tried to tell us that the people who built the fantastic Art Deco structures at the high school my daughter is currently attending were “unemployed.”

I do not think those workers would have agreed.

 

[Jroc]

I really want to hear more about how terrible FDR was.

I acknowledge his most egregious and tragic decision- Japanese internment- something many Conservatives to this day applaud.

But the facts are very, very clear.

FDR was elected as the country was in a Depression with 25% unemployment, and a third or fourth rate military- and died as President- massively popular- with virtually no unemployment, with the United States being the most powerful country in the world, with the most powerful military in the world.

Please explain why all of that offends you?

FDR extended the depression. He didn't pull us out of anything

The fact is that when FDR came into office- unemployment was 25%- by 1940- it was down to 9%.
The fact is that when FDR died- the United States had gone from our countries worse depression to being the undisputed most powerful country in the world- the most powerful military and the most powerful economy.

And led us to victory over Japan, Germany and Italy.

Those are the facts. None of Hoover's efforts had done anything to change the direction the economy was going.

And he left us with:
Social Security
Unemployment Insurance
Bank Depositors Insurance.

Did FDR's policies prolong the Depression- perhaps- 2 or 3 economists believe he did. Many others believe he brought the country out of the Depression- there is no way to be sure- but we are sure what did happen.

Roosevelt's policies had nothing to do with ending the depression ..

What about World War II? We need to understand that the near-full employment during the conflict was temporary. Ten million to 12 million soldiers overseas and another 10 million to 15 million people making tanks, bullets and war materiel do not a lasting recovery make. The country essentially traded temporary jobs for a skyrocketing national debt. Many of those jobs had little or no value after the war.

No one knew this more than FDR himself. His key advisers were frantic at the possibility of the Great Depression's return when the war ended and the soldiers came home. The president believed a New Deal revival was the answer—and on Oct. 28, 1944, about six months before his death, he spelled out his vision for a postwar America. It included government-subsidized housing, federal involvement in health care, more TVA projects, and the "right to a useful and remunerative job" provided by the federal government if necessary.

Roosevelt died before the war ended and before he could implement his New Deal revival.

Corporate tax rates were trimmed and FDR's "excess profits" tax was repealed, which meant that top marginal corporate tax rates effectively went to 38% from 90% after 1945.

Georgia Sen. Walter George, chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, defended the Revenue Act of 1945 with arguments that today we would call "supply-side economics." If the tax bill "has the effect which it is hoped it will have," George said, "it will so stimulate the expansion of business as to bring in a greater total revenue."

He was prophetic. By the late 1940s, a revived economy was generating more annual federal revenue than the U.S. had received during the war years, when tax rates were higher. Price controls from the war were also eliminated by the end of 1946. The U.S. began running budget surpluses.

Congress substituted the tonic of freedom for FDR's New Deal revival and the American economy recovered well. Unemployment, which had been in double digits throughout the 1930s, was only 3.9% in 1946 and, except for a couple of short recessions, remained in that range for the next decade.

The Great Depression was over, no thanks to FDR. Yet the myth of his New Deal lives on. With the current effort by President Obama to emulate some of FDR's programs to get us out of the recent deep recession, this myth should be laid to rest.

Did FDR End the Depression?

 

[regent]

There are so many facets to the time of FDR that we fail to remember, one was the families that were able to stay together because of a public works job. During the Hoover period fathers left home and their families because they were a drain on the spotty income a family might have. Children also left home for the same reason and many kids rode the rails, looking for work. One of the first FDR programs was to get the kids off the road. This was accomplished by the CCC's. A CCC member got thirty bucks a month and if he sent the thirty home he was given five bucks for his very own. Most sent the money home. The military ran the camps and most would end up in WWII. For the fathers there was the WPA and PWA I think they got eleven dollars a week and as mentioned built and rebuilt so much of America today. Hoover's answer had been to loan business and manufacturers money to build products that weren't selling and sat on warehouse shelves.

 

[Camp]

Meantime, FDR has major Memorials in two cities, Washington DC and New York .....

More logical fallacy.

No, proof that money talks and bullshit walks. ......

Logical fallacy, you dope.

What is it with you miserable people that have constant needs to call other people names? Do you not realize it is like a flashing sign that gives away your insecurities and lack of emotional strength or confident ego? What possible gratification could you get from calling an unknown anonymous person on a message board a dope? Why would you think it had any meaning?

Stop being a dope anytime it gets too traumatic for you to hear the truth about yourself, dope.

Sorry you have to live such a miserable angry life. Try to find some happiness somewhere.

 

[PoliticalChic]

11. And....never overlook the propaganda lie that either
a) we needed Stalin to defeat Hitler,
or b) without Roosevelt, Hitler would have beaten Stalin.
Nether comes close to the truth.

According to Stalin- without American assistance, Germany would have defeated the Soviet Union.

But I will humor you.

Tell me your alternative strategy on December 11, 1941- the United States is at war with Japan, Germany and Italy.

Tell me what you think FDR should have done differently.

Go for it.

Easy peasy, lemon squeezy!

1. What could, should have happened?
When the (anticipated) event that Hitler would attack Stalin's Russia, as they did June 21st, 1941,America should have done nothing...no more than relaxing restrictions on exports to the Russians...but at the same time securing a quid pro quo for further assistance! Lend-Lease should not have been the automatic and unlimited buffet that it turned into!

"Finally, should the Soviet regime fall,...we should refuse to recognize a Communist government-in-exile,leaving the path clear for establishment for a non-Communist government in Russia after the war." These were the words of Loy Henderson, Soviet and Eastern European affairs expert and Foreign Service officer, as quoted by Martin Weil in "A pretty good club: The founding fathers of the U.S. Foreign Service," p. 106.


2. In a letter to FDR, dated January 29, 1943, William Bullitt (Franklin D. Roosevelt appointed Bullitt the first US ambassador to the Soviet Union, a post that he filled from 1933 to 1936.)warned Roosevelt about what would happen if he continued pursuing the policies of appeasement toward Stalin that formed the foundation of the American war strategy. He pleaded with FDR not to 'permit our war to prevent Nazi domination of Europe to be turned into a war to establish Soviet domination of Europe.'

He predicted the Soviet annexation of half of Europe; George Kennan identified that letter as the earliest warning of what would be the result of FDR's policies.
"For the President Personal & Secret: Correspondence Between Franklin D. Roosevelt and William C. Bullitt," Orville H. Bullitt, p. 575-590


3. Hanson Baldwin, military critic of the New York Times, declares in his book, "Great Mistakes of the War:" 'There is no doubt whatsoever thatit would have been to the interest of Britain, the United States, and the world to have allowed and indeed to have encouraged-the world's two great dictatorships to fight each other to a frazzle.'
Baldwin writes that the United States put itself "in the role-at times a disgraceful role-of fearful suppliant and propitiating ally, anxious at nearly any cost to keep Russia fighting. In retrospect, how stupid!"



BTW....note how those last two words apply to you.

But isn't this the debate tactics that both sides utilize ?

And the double standard is pretty clear on this.

I don't agree with you on several points.

As an example....While Wallace appears to have been playing with half a deck, I don't know that he was communist or that you can state Roosevelt had a communist for a VP. However, there has always pretty clear evidence of his sympathies. Additionally, from what I recall...Wallace was kind of a whackjob religious nut.

But, you can't produce absolute, lock down tight explicit proof that such was the case. Short of an explicit admission on his part (under oath, truth syrum, and threat of death....of course), everyone will sit there and say that "you've yet to produce any proof".

Which is technically correct......your counter is that if it quacks like a duck......which is valid....but still allows others to room to step back in the face of pretty good evidence and say...."you have no proof".

And yet these same lying asswipes will smugly state that "Obama saved us from a depression"....you know the one we were never in. And when someone says that's more a matter of probability than strict fact....they piss all over themselves to show you how it is absolutely true (even though you can't prove it because it was not allowed to play out).

So, every time I read the attacks (and BTW rightwinger and Dot Com post an attack...I have to laugh....while it requires a connection....at least you make an argument....again I don't always agree with you....they on the other hand can barely manage to get their Saul Alinsky approved BS talking points onto the board in one piece.), I have to laugh hard at their baboon type crap flinging methods.

I appreciate your efforts....even when you are wrong.

I do enjoy watching your opposition wet themselves in their rush to show you how wrong you are absent the same proof they want you to produce.

If one supports the aims and methods of the communists....said person is a communist.


Later in life, Wallace recanted....he actually wrote an apology for support of the above.

By every realpolitik metric, Wallace was a communist,and would have aided them in their every endeavor.



See the following, a letter of apology by Wallace:

"Up to a point, my analysis was sound, but it failed utterly to take into account the ruthless nature of Russian-trained Communists whose sole objective was to make Czechoslovakia completely subservient to Moscow.


Today, knowing more about Russia's methods, I am sure it was a serious mistake when we withdrew our troops. Russia may not want a hot war at tang time in the net ten years, but she certainly wants such a continuation of the Col War as will enable her, through her satellites and internally-planted subversives, to take over the greatest amount of territory possible. Russia is still on the march, and the question now is whether she will be able to take over all of Asia, including India and the Near East."
Henry A. Wallace (1952) on the Ruthless Nature and Utter Evil of Soviet Communism: Cold-War Era God-That-Failed Weblogging

 

[Sun Devil 92]

using a source for his zany posts would prolly kill him

Please show us the last post where you used a source.

 

[PoliticalChic]

To Review:

Henry A. Wallace, by every measure, was a communist....

....and...

..Franklin Delano Roosevelt threatened the Democrat Party that he would not run, he actually had written a speech declining the nomination, if Wallace was not chosen to replace Garner.


That is an important element in the calculation when one considers the kneel-before-Stalin policies of Roosevelt.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

11. And....never overlook the propaganda lie that either
a) we needed Stalin to defeat Hitler,
or b) without Roosevelt, Hitler would have beaten Stalin.
Nether comes close to the truth.

According to Stalin- without American assistance, Germany would have defeated the Soviet Union.

But I will humor you.

Tell me your alternative strategy on December 11, 1941- the United States is at war with Japan, Germany and Italy.

Tell me what you think FDR should have done differently.

Go for it.

Easy peasy, lemon squeezy!

1. What could, should have happened?
When the (anticipated) event that Hitler would attack Stalin's Russia, as they did June 21st, 1941,America should have done nothing...no more than relaxing restrictions on exports to the Russians...but at the same time securing a quid pro quo for further assistance! Lend-Lease should not have been the automatic and unlimited buffet that it turned into!

"Finally, should the Soviet regime fall,...we should refuse to recognize a Communist government-in-exile,leaving the path clear for establishment for a non-Communist government in Russia after the war." These were the words of Loy Henderson, Soviet and Eastern European affairs expert and Foreign Service officer, as quoted by Martin Weil in "A pretty good club: The founding fathers of the U.S. Foreign Service," p. 106.


2. In a letter to FDR, dated January 29, 1943, William Bullitt (Franklin D. Roosevelt appointed Bullitt the first US ambassador to the Soviet Union, a post that he filled from 1933 to 1936.)warned Roosevelt about what would happen if he continued pursuing the policies of appeasement toward Stalin that formed the foundation of the American war strategy. He pleaded with FDR not to 'permit our war to prevent Nazi domination of Europe to be turned into a war to establish Soviet domination of Europe.'

He predicted the Soviet annexation of half of Europe; George Kennan identified that letter as the earliest warning of what would be the result of FDR's policies.
"For the President Personal & Secret: Correspondence Between Franklin D. Roosevelt and William C. Bullitt," Orville H. Bullitt, p. 575-590


3. Hanson Baldwin, military critic of the New York Times, declares in his book, "Great Mistakes of the War:" 'There is no doubt whatsoever thatit would have been to the interest of Britain, the United States, and the world to have allowed and indeed to have encouraged-the world's two great dictatorships to fight each other to a frazzle.'
Baldwin writes that the United States put itself "in the role-at times a disgraceful role-of fearful suppliant and propitiating ally, anxious at nearly any cost to keep Russia fighting. In retrospect, how stupid!"



BTW....note how those last two words apply to you.

But isn't this the debate tactics that both sides utilize ?

And the double standard is pretty clear on this.

I don't agree with you on several points.

As an example....While Wallace appears to have been playing with half a deck, I don't know that he was communist or that you can state Roosevelt had a communist for a VP. However, there has always pretty clear evidence of his sympathies. Additionally, from what I recall...Wallace was kind of a whackjob religious nut.

But, you can't produce absolute, lock down tight explicit proof that such was the case. Short of an explicit admission on his part (under oath, truth syrum, and threat of death....of course), everyone will sit there and say that "you've yet to produce any proof".

Which is technically correct......your counter is that if it quacks like a duck......which is valid....but still allows others to room to step back in the face of pretty good evidence and say...."you have no proof".

And yet these same lying asswipes will smugly state that "Obama saved us from a depression"....you know the one we were never in. And when someone says that's more a matter of probability than strict fact....they piss all over themselves to show you how it is absolutely true (even though you can't prove it because it was not allowed to play out).

So, every time I read the attacks (and BTW rightwinger and Dot Com post an attack...I have to laugh....while it requires a connection....at least you make an argument....again I don't always agree with you....they on the other hand can barely manage to get their Saul Alinsky approved BS talking points onto the board in one piece.), I have to laugh hard at their baboon type crap flinging methods.

I appreciate your efforts....even when you are wrong.

I do enjoy watching your opposition wet themselves in their rush to show you how wrong you are absent the same proof they want you to produce.

If one supports the aims and methods of the communists....said person is a communist.


Later in life, Wallace recanted....he actually wrote an apology for support of the above.

By every realpolitik metric, Wallace was a communist,and would have aided them in their every endeavor.



See the following, a letter of apology by Wallace:

"Up to a point, my analysis was sound, but it failed utterly to take into account the ruthless nature of Russian-trained Communists whose sole objective was to make Czechoslovakia completely subservient to Moscow.


Today, knowing more about Russia's methods, I am sure it was a serious mistake when we withdrew our troops. Russia may not want a hot war at tang time in the net ten years, but she certainly wants such a continuation of the Col War as will enable her, through her satellites and internally-planted subversives, to take over the greatest amount of territory possible. Russia is still on the march, and the question now is whether she will be able to take over all of Asia, including India and the Near East."
Henry A. Wallace (1952) on the Ruthless Nature and Utter Evil of Soviet Communism: Cold-War Era God-That-Failed Weblogging

And that's my point.

As you've said...if it walks like a duck.....

Wallace apparently was a big advocate of things like universal health care. He had concerns for the fact that people did not have the basics.

Most socialists I know start out as ideologues. But the realities of human nature just seem to get in the way.

And his admission is as close as you'll get....but those who scream about how it is so bloody "clear" that Obama saved us from a great depression (all speculation) won't accept your assertions without bloodwritten proof.

It's no longer about the politics....it's about them being to stupid and stubborn to admit they are wrong.

Look at Dot Com's constant bleating (generally one line turds)....what proof has he provided on anything ?

 

[PoliticalChic]

11. And....never overlook the propaganda lie that either
a) we needed Stalin to defeat Hitler,
or b) without Roosevelt, Hitler would have beaten Stalin.
Nether comes close to the truth.

According to Stalin- without American assistance, Germany would have defeated the Soviet Union.

But I will humor you.

Tell me your alternative strategy on December 11, 1941- the United States is at war with Japan, Germany and Italy.

Tell me what you think FDR should have done differently.

Go for it.

Easy peasy, lemon squeezy!

1. What could, should have happened?
When the (anticipated) event that Hitler would attack Stalin's Russia, as they did June 21st, 1941,America should have done nothing...no more than relaxing restrictions on exports to the Russians...but at the same time securing a quid pro quo for further assistance! Lend-Lease should not have been the automatic and unlimited buffet that it turned into!

"Finally, should the Soviet regime fall,...we should refuse to recognize a Communist government-in-exile,leaving the path clear for establishment for a non-Communist government in Russia after the war." These were the words of Loy Henderson, Soviet and Eastern European affairs expert and Foreign Service officer, as quoted by Martin Weil in "A pretty good club: The founding fathers of the U.S. Foreign Service," p. 106.


2. In a letter to FDR, dated January 29, 1943, William Bullitt (Franklin D. Roosevelt appointed Bullitt the first US ambassador to the Soviet Union, a post that he filled from 1933 to 1936.)warned Roosevelt about what would happen if he continued pursuing the policies of appeasement toward Stalin that formed the foundation of the American war strategy. He pleaded with FDR not to 'permit our war to prevent Nazi domination of Europe to be turned into a war to establish Soviet domination of Europe.'

He predicted the Soviet annexation of half of Europe; George Kennan identified that letter as the earliest warning of what would be the result of FDR's policies.
"For the President Personal & Secret: Correspondence Between Franklin D. Roosevelt and William C. Bullitt," Orville H. Bullitt, p. 575-590


3. Hanson Baldwin, military critic of the New York Times, declares in his book, "Great Mistakes of the War:" 'There is no doubt whatsoever thatit would have been to the interest of Britain, the United States, and the world to have allowed and indeed to have encouraged-the world's two great dictatorships to fight each other to a frazzle.'
Baldwin writes that the United States put itself "in the role-at times a disgraceful role-of fearful suppliant and propitiating ally, anxious at nearly any cost to keep Russia fighting. In retrospect, how stupid!"



BTW....note how those last two words apply to you.

But isn't this the debate tactics that both sides utilize ?

And the double standard is pretty clear on this.

I don't agree with you on several points.

As an example....While Wallace appears to have been playing with half a deck, I don't know that he was communist or that you can state Roosevelt had a communist for a VP. However, there has always pretty clear evidence of his sympathies. Additionally, from what I recall...Wallace was kind of a whackjob religious nut.

But, you can't produce absolute, lock down tight explicit proof that such was the case. Short of an explicit admission on his part (under oath, truth syrum, and threat of death....of course), everyone will sit there and say that "you've yet to produce any proof".

Which is technically correct......your counter is that if it quacks like a duck......which is valid....but still allows others to room to step back in the face of pretty good evidence and say...."you have no proof".

And yet these same lying asswipes will smugly state that "Obama saved us from a depression"....you know the one we were never in. And when someone says that's more a matter of probability than strict fact....they piss all over themselves to show you how it is absolutely true (even though you can't prove it because it was not allowed to play out).

So, every time I read the attacks (and BTW rightwinger and Dot Com post an attack...I have to laugh....while it requires a connection....at least you make an argument....again I don't always agree with you....they on the other hand can barely manage to get their Saul Alinsky approved BS talking points onto the board in one piece.), I have to laugh hard at their baboon type crap flinging methods.

I appreciate your efforts....even when you are wrong.

I do enjoy watching your opposition wet themselves in their rush to show you how wrong you are absent the same proof they want you to produce.

If one supports the aims and methods of the communists....said person is a communist.


Later in life, Wallace recanted....he actually wrote an apology for support of the above.

By every realpolitik metric, Wallace was a communist,and would have aided them in their every endeavor.



See the following, a letter of apology by Wallace:

"Up to a point, my analysis was sound, but it failed utterly to take into account the ruthless nature of Russian-trained Communists whose sole objective was to make Czechoslovakia completely subservient to Moscow.


Today, knowing more about Russia's methods, I am sure it was a serious mistake when we withdrew our troops. Russia may not want a hot war at tang time in the net ten years, but she certainly wants such a continuation of the Col War as will enable her, through her satellites and internally-planted subversives, to take over the greatest amount of territory possible. Russia is still on the march, and the question now is whether she will be able to take over all of Asia, including India and the Near East."
Henry A. Wallace (1952) on the Ruthless Nature and Utter Evil of Soviet Communism: Cold-War Era God-That-Failed Weblogging

And that's my point.

As you've said...if it walks like a duck.....

Wallace apparently was a big advocate of things like universal health care. He had concerns for the fact that people did not have the basics.

Most socialists I know start out as ideologues. But the realities of human nature just seem to get in the way.

And his admission is as close as you'll get....but those who scream about how it is so bloody "clear" that Obama saved us from a great depression (all speculation) won't accept your assertions without bloodwritten proof.

It's no longer about the politics....it's about them being to stupid and stubborn to admit they are wrong.

Look at Dot Com's constant bleating (generally one line turds)....what proof has he provided on anything ?

1. The progressive left, and the liberal left, while not themselves communists, share many of the same sympathies, such of redistribution of wealth, and worker’s rights, nationalizations of industry, etc, but are not quite as far left as the communists, and would not go to the same lengths as the communists to achieve their goals. This does not mean, though, that the help of these dupes is not necessary in order for the communists to achieve victory. Even at their peak, in the ‘30’s, the Communist Party of the United States never had more than 100 thousand members: so deception of the ‘dupes’ was critical.

1. The archives tell a tale of plans and schemes between the CPUSA and the Communist International in Moscow, to dupe progressives and liberals: “go to rallies,” “don’t let them know you are a communist!,” “If anyone reveals that you are a communist, claim it is red-baiting,” “yell ‘McCarthyism!”
   Dr. Paul Kengor, Hoover Institution, Stanford “DUPES: How America's Adversaries Have Manipulated Progressives for a Century”

2. "Wallace apparently was a big advocate of things like universal health care. "
a. Government control of private sector activity...is aptly described as Bolshevik- or Marxist, socialist, collectivist, statist, or, for that matter, fascist, too. Indeed, nationalized health care was one of the first programs enacted by the Bolsheviks after they seized power in 1917 (Banks, insurance companies and means of communications were also taken over by Soviet authorities immediately. Dziewanowski, "A History of Soviet Russia," p. 107.

b. Obama wasn't the first Bolshevik to support socialized medicine. For context, there was Henry Sigerist: "He devoted himself to the study of history of medicine.Socialized Medicine in the Soviet Union(1937), andHistory of Medicinewere among his most important works. He emerged as a major spokesman for "compulsory health insurance". ...He attacked theAmerican Medical Associationbecause of his conflicting views onsocialized medicine." Henry E. Sigerist - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And, Sigerist was one of the apologists for Stalin, including his state-engineered famine in the Ukraine. 7 million perished (The History Place - Genocide in the 20th Century: Stalin's Forced Famine 1932-33).

c. Sigerist "shared with the architects of Soviet health policy under Stalin an outlook best described as medical totalitarianism. He really believed that humanity would be better off if every individual were under the medical supervision of the state from cradle to grave....[and] Sigerist's belief in the necessity for state control over all aspects of medicine ultimately made him an apologist for state control over most aspects of human life." Fee and Brown, eds. "Making Medical History: The Life and Times of Henry E. Sigerist," p. 252


3. I bet you know that Reagan saw to it that everyone in the country, citizen or not, had healthcare.

 

[Camp]

To Review:

Henry A. Wallace, by every measure, was a communist....

Liar. You still have not given evidence to one of the lies you are perpetrating in this thread. The Vice President of the USA during WWII was not a communist. To say he was based on your selective speculations to form an agenda driven opinion is a lie. Period, plain and simple. You are demanding people consider your conspiracy theory is factual and it is not.