Roosevelt's Administration: The Way It Was

[Camp]

Now....watch me eviscerate both you and your quotee......

Really, you eviscerate me and my quotee with a quote from Chesley Manly. People browsing this thread may not bother to check out sources you use. You depend on that. I use a source and include enough information about the source so that a person can quickly google the name of the author and ascertain whether the source can be considered reliable.

So my source is a respected working Historian at a well known university and has an impressive resume. LeeAnn GhajarPerhaps you can give us some information about Manly. Perhaps readers of this thread might google the name.

Oh wait, if they do that they may discover that on Dec 4, 1941, three days before Pearl Harbor he published a story in the Chicago Tribune that leaked the "Rainbow" plans which were the secret contingency plans for a potential war with Germany. And, if they read further they may discover that Hitler used the article in his Declaration of War speech on Dec. 11 as proof of the ill intent of the USA.

What may be truely amazing is if anyone finds an actual bio or proof that Manly existed and was anything other than a pseudonym for a fascist cabal. That would surely indicate a person would have impressive research skills.

"Really, you eviscerate me and my quotee with a quote from Chesley Manly."


Since you misspelled the name, clearly, you didn't 'check out' anything.



No, you lying sack of sewage.....I provided three sources....including a newspaper article of the time...with the quote.






And that means that your source..... LeeAnn Ghajar....is just one more propagandist mouthpiece for the pro-communist Roosevelians.

As you are.



Bottom line: you have not been able to disprove any of the material provided.
Conclusion: you are merely a simpleton who will follow Roosevelt to the grave.

So spell the name without the "e" in Chesly. I mispelled it in my handwritten notes, but searched the name with the correct spelling. I was already familiar with the name and used a quick search to confirm what I already knew. It still comes to the same conclusion. You still haven't answered the the question I asked you days ago about Manly.
All of your quotes could be perfectly accurate. That doesn't mean they mean what you say they mean when put into context. And newspaper articles have limited use as historical documents. They distort, twist, spin and take out of context quotes the same way you do. Do you believe everything you read in the newspaper? Does anyone? So somebody found some newspaper article that appear to back up their opinion. So what?
Fact is that at the present time in this discussion your main source of information for forming your thesis is an alleged tool of a fascist cabal that gave aid to the Nazi's and later was used as a key tool in McCarthy era distribution of disinformation in the same manner as was done for the Nazi's. Feel free to post information about Chesly Manly that shows me to be mistaken.

 

[Unkotare]

Originally, I thought I wonder which of our presidents was the greatest, and after thinking long and hard I said "Of course,FDR."

Ok, let's see if you can at least try: Why?

 

[regent]

Originally, I thought I wonder which of our presidents was the greatest, and after thinking long and hard I said "Of course,FDR."

Ok, let's see if you can at least try: Why?

Well FDR changed America, as did other outstanding presidents. First, he gave people hope during the great depression, they were a different people after his fear speech. Then he tried different methods to alleviate the depression always placing the welfare of the American people first. He instituted programs that we still have today, and not only still have, but have been enlarged. He strengthened America's defenses when Europe got goofy. He fought the America Firsters and all the other Republicans that fought our rearmement. Then came Pearl Harbor.
Books written by competent historians have long been published might try reading some history on your very own. I think FDR has more books written about his presidency than any president but Lincoln. Lincoln long rated, and still rated by some, as America's greatest did not have the Great Depression problem only the war.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Originally, I thought I wonder which of our presidents was the greatest, and after thinking long and hard I said "Of course,FDR."

Ok, let's see if you can at least try: Why?

Well FDR changed America, as did other outstanding presidents. First, he gave people hope during the great depression, they were a different people after his fear speech. Then he tried different methods to alleviate the depression always placing the welfare of the American people first. He instituted programs that we still have today, and not only still have, but have been enlarged. He strengthened America's defenses when Europe got goofy. He fought the America Firsters and all the other Republicans that fought our rearmement. Then came Pearl Harbor.
Books written by competent historians have long been published might try reading some history on your very own. I think FDR has more books written about his presidency than any president but Lincoln. Lincoln long rated, and still rated by some, as America's greatest did not have the Great Depression problem only the war.

His first two terms were the two worst ever; he averaged 20% unemployment for the entire spam of his two terms.

 

[Unkotare]

Originally, I thought I wonder which of our presidents was the greatest, and after thinking long and hard I said "Of course,FDR."

Ok, let's see if you can at least try: Why?

Well FDR changed America, as did other outstanding presidents.

Change, in and of itself, does not carry its own value judgement. Change for the worse is also change. FDR's reckless and random policy ideas instituted and inculcated the notion of government dependency on a scale and a level theretofore never seen in America, and they prolonged the Great Depression rather than ended it. The legacy of several of these policies are a large part of the economic conundrum we face today and tomorrow.

In reacting to the war - a war he had lied to the American people about long and loudly - he did nothing positive that anyone else who might have held the office at that time would have done. Others have pointed out to you in great detail the many things he did in that regard that were not so positive.

But hey, at least you are trying to think for yourself now.

The big question is, how you account for FDR's sins and grave transgressions against the US Constitution and the rights of Americans in concluding that, for you, he was the "greatest" American president. There is no accountability for such actions in your evaluation?

 

[gipper]

Ok, let's see if you can at least try: Why?

Well FDR changed America, as did other outstanding presidents. First, he gave people hope during the great depression, they were a different people after his fear speech. Then he tried different methods to alleviate the depression always placing the welfare of the American people first. He instituted programs that we still have today, and not only still have, but have been enlarged. He strengthened America's defenses when Europe got goofy. He fought the America Firsters and all the other Republicans that fought our rearmement. Then came Pearl Harbor.
Books written by competent historians have long been published might try reading some history on your very own. I think FDR has more books written about his presidency than any president but Lincoln. Lincoln long rated, and still rated by some, as America's greatest did not have the Great Depression problem only the war.

His first two terms were the two worst ever; he averaged 20% unemployment for the entire spam of his two terms.

So true and that alone should result in him being considered one of our worst presidents. And it must be remembered that during those first two terms, he intervened in the economy in massive fashion. Yet his interventions only made matters worse. He failed to learn from his many failures.

Then when you couple his economic failures with his love of the world's worst dictator, his administration completely compromised by commie spies, proclaiming he would keep America out of WWII prior to his 3rd election; while beyond the scenes doing all he could to instigate war. Then running in '44 while on his death bed, in the middle of America's biggest war, and keeping it all from the American people.

He was a fool of the highest order.

 

[PoliticalChic]

8. On March 26, 1945, Army Chief of Staff George C. Marshall issued the following order:
"Censor all stories, delete criticism Russian treatment."

This was aimed at those Americans who had been POWs of the Red Army.
Note that some 20,000 US soldiers were never returned.


a. FDR died April 12th..but, based on Marshall's order, the White House clearly knew of the following prior to that:

" By May 15, 1945, the Pentagon believed 25,000 American POWs "liberated" by the Red Army were still being held hostage to Soviet demands that all "Soviet citizens" be returned to Soviet control, "without exception" and by force if necessary, as agreed to at the Yalta Conference in February 1945. When the U.S. refused to return some military formations composed of Soviet citizens, such as the First Ukrainian SS Division, Stalin retaliated by returning only 4,116 of the hostage American POWs. On June 1, 1945, the United States Government issued documents, signed by General Dwight D. Eisenhower, explaining away the loss of approximately 20,000 POWs remaining under Stalin's control." WWII Home Page, National Alliance of Families





Who can explain FDR's actions with respect to his backing of Stalin's communists?
No genocide, no massacres, no duplicity of any sort dimmed FDR's ardor for 'Uncle Joe."

Explain it?

Anyone?



C'mon.....surely one of the Roosevelt groupees can shed some light on why no criticism of Stalin's kidnapping of 20,000 American soldiers was to be allowed by the Roosevelt administration?


Surely?

 

[regent]

Well FDR changed America, as did other outstanding presidents. First, he gave people hope during the great depression, they were a different people after his fear speech. Then he tried different methods to alleviate the depression always placing the welfare of the American people first. He instituted programs that we still have today, and not only still have, but have been enlarged. He strengthened America's defenses when Europe got goofy. He fought the America Firsters and all the other Republicans that fought our rearmement. Then came Pearl Harbor.
Books written by competent historians have long been published might try reading some history on your very own. I think FDR has more books written about his presidency than any president but Lincoln. Lincoln long rated, and still rated by some, as America's greatest did not have the Great Depression problem only the war.

His first two terms were the two worst ever; he averaged 20% unemployment for the entire spam of his two terms.

So true and that alone should result in him being considered one of our worst presidents. And it must be remembered that during those first two terms, he intervened in the economy in massive fashion. Yet his interventions only made matters worse. He failed to learn from his many failures.

Then when you couple his economic failures with his love of the world's worst dictator, his administration completely compromised by commie spies, proclaiming he would keep America out of WWII prior to his 3rd election; while beyond the scenes doing all he could to instigate war. Then running in '44 while on his death bed, in the middle of America's biggest war, and keeping it all from the American people.

He was a fool of the highest order.

To average the unemployment figures is to say that they were 40% when FDR took office and 0% when FDR left office. Meaningless. Each year has its own story to tell. By the way what were the unemployment figures when FDR took office and when he died?
As to FDR instigating war that is one anti-FDR argument, the other that FDR did not prepare America for war? Are you saying that FDR should not have been aware of what was going on in the world with Germany and Japan or that we should not have started to rearm? But the bottom line is that both Geramany and Jaapan declared war on the US.

 

[Camp]

8. On March 26, 1945, Army Chief of Staff George C. Marshall issued the following order:
"Censor all stories, delete criticism Russian treatment."

This was aimed at those Americans who had been POWs of the Red Army.
Note that some 20,000 US soldiers were never returned.


a. FDR died April 12th..but, based on Marshall's order, the White House clearly knew of the following prior to that:

" By May 15, 1945, the Pentagon believed 25,000 American POWs "liberated" by the Red Army were still being held hostage to Soviet demands that all "Soviet citizens" be returned to Soviet control, "without exception" and by force if necessary, as agreed to at the Yalta Conference in February 1945. When the U.S. refused to return some military formations composed of Soviet citizens, such as the First Ukrainian SS Division, Stalin retaliated by returning only 4,116 of the hostage American POWs. On June 1, 1945, the United States Government issued documents, signed by General Dwight D. Eisenhower, explaining away the loss of approximately 20,000 POWs remaining under Stalin's control." WWII Home Page, National Alliance of Families





Who can explain FDR's actions with respect to his backing of Stalin's communists?
No genocide, no massacres, no duplicity of any sort dimmed FDR's ardor for 'Uncle Joe."

Explain it?

Anyone?



C'mon.....surely one of the Roosevelt groupees can shed some light on why no criticism of Stalin's kidnapping of 20,000 American soldiers was to be allowed by the Roosevelt administration?


Surely?

Surely you don't need a groupee. You just need someone who knows history stuff more than you.

FDR was dead and buried when the alleged abandonment of American POW's occurred. You are twisting Mashall's orders to fit your agenda. And they weren't POW's of the RED ARMY. They were former POW's of the German Army who were freed from German camps by Soviet troops and supposedly being held for repatriation.

Nobody said anything because nobody knew anything until the publication of CHAIN OF PRISONERS: FROM YALTA TO VIETNAM by John M. G. Brown and Thomas G. Ashworth published in May 1989 by U.S. VETERAN News And Report

 

[PoliticalChic]

8. On March 26, 1945, Army Chief of Staff George C. Marshall issued the following order:
"Censor all stories, delete criticism Russian treatment."

This was aimed at those Americans who had been POWs of the Red Army.
Note that some 20,000 US soldiers were never returned.


a. FDR died April 12th..but, based on Marshall's order, the White House clearly knew of the following prior to that:

" By May 15, 1945, the Pentagon believed 25,000 American POWs "liberated" by the Red Army were still being held hostage to Soviet demands that all "Soviet citizens" be returned to Soviet control, "without exception" and by force if necessary, as agreed to at the Yalta Conference in February 1945. When the U.S. refused to return some military formations composed of Soviet citizens, such as the First Ukrainian SS Division, Stalin retaliated by returning only 4,116 of the hostage American POWs. On June 1, 1945, the United States Government issued documents, signed by General Dwight D. Eisenhower, explaining away the loss of approximately 20,000 POWs remaining under Stalin's control." WWII Home Page, National Alliance of Families





Who can explain FDR's actions with respect to his backing of Stalin's communists?
No genocide, no massacres, no duplicity of any sort dimmed FDR's ardor for 'Uncle Joe."

Explain it?

Anyone?



C'mon.....surely one of the Roosevelt groupees can shed some light on why no criticism of Stalin's kidnapping of 20,000 American soldiers was to be allowed by the Roosevelt administration?


Surely?

Surely you don't need a groupee. You just need someone who knows history stuff more than you.

FDR was dead and buried when the alleged abandonment of American POW's occurred. You are twisting Mashall's orders to fit your agenda. And they weren't POW's of the RED ARMY. They were former POW's of the German Army who were freed from German camps by Soviet troops and supposedly being held for repatriation.

Nobody said anything because nobody knew anything until the publication of CHAIN OF PRISONERS: FROM YALTA TO VIETNAM by John M. G. Brown and Thomas G. Ashworth published in May 1989 by U.S. VETERAN News And Report

"Nobody said anything because nobody knew anything until...."


Sounds pretty much like you until you read my threads.....


...but, you get today's award for "Unintentional Humor."


Congrats.

 

[Camp]

8. On March 26, 1945, Army Chief of Staff George C. Marshall issued the following order:
"Censor all stories, delete criticism Russian treatment."

This was aimed at those Americans who had been POWs of the Red Army.
Note that some 20,000 US soldiers were never returned.


a. FDR died April 12th..but, based on Marshall's order, the White House clearly knew of the following prior to that:

" By May 15, 1945, the Pentagon believed 25,000 American POWs "liberated" by the Red Army were still being held hostage to Soviet demands that all "Soviet citizens" be returned to Soviet control, "without exception" and by force if necessary, as agreed to at the Yalta Conference in February 1945. When the U.S. refused to return some military formations composed of Soviet citizens, such as the First Ukrainian SS Division, Stalin retaliated by returning only 4,116 of the hostage American POWs. On June 1, 1945, the United States Government issued documents, signed by General Dwight D. Eisenhower, explaining away the loss of approximately 20,000 POWs remaining under Stalin's control." WWII Home Page, National Alliance of Families





Who can explain FDR's actions with respect to his backing of Stalin's communists?
No genocide, no massacres, no duplicity of any sort dimmed FDR's ardor for 'Uncle Joe."

Explain it?

Anyone?



C'mon.....surely one of the Roosevelt groupees can shed some light on why no criticism of Stalin's kidnapping of 20,000 American soldiers was to be allowed by the Roosevelt administration?


Surely?

Surely you don't need a groupee. You just need someone who knows history stuff more than you.

FDR was dead and buried when the alleged abandonment of American POW's occurred. You are twisting Mashall's orders to fit your agenda. And they weren't POW's of the RED ARMY. They were former POW's of the German Army who were freed from German camps by Soviet troops and supposedly being held for repatriation.

Nobody said anything because nobody knew anything until the publication of CHAIN OF PRISONERS: FROM YALTA TO VIETNAM by John M. G. Brown and Thomas G. Ashworth published in May 1989 by U.S. VETERAN News And Report

"Nobody said anything because nobody knew anything until...."


Sounds pretty much like you until you read my threads.....


...but, you get today's award for "Unintentional Humor."


Congrats.

Show something about the abandoned POW's from WWII that pre-dates May of 1989.
I'm looking at a copy of CHAIN OF PRISONERS at this very moment. Just checked it to make sure I was still listed as one of the sponsors for the research and publication. Yup, still there.

 

[Camp]

Surely you don't need a groupee. You just need someone who knows history stuff more than you.

FDR was dead and buried when the alleged abandonment of American POW's occurred. You are twisting Mashall's orders to fit your agenda. And they weren't POW's of the RED ARMY. They were former POW's of the German Army who were freed from German camps by Soviet troops and supposedly being held for repatriation.

Nobody said anything because nobody knew anything until the publication of CHAIN OF PRISONERS: FROM YALTA TO VIETNAM by John M. G. Brown and Thomas G. Ashworth published in May 1989 by U.S. VETERAN News And Report

"Nobody said anything because nobody knew anything until...."


Sounds pretty much like you until you read my threads.....


...but, you get today's award for "Unintentional Humor."


Congrats.

Show something about the abandoned POW's from WWII that pre-dates May of 1989.
I'm looking at a copy of CHAIN OF PRISONERS at this very moment. Just checked it to make sure I was still listed as one of the sponsors for the research and publication. Yup, still there.

You are a bully PC. I noticed that whenever someone disagreed with your thesis you attacked them with insults and name calling rather than debate and discussion. You use normal internet tactics to attempt to belittle those who dare contest your opinions. If that doesn't work you hit them with an avalanche of copy and paste crap and challage them to "prove you are wrong". When you get proven wrong you just blow it off, make some more insults, call some names and ignore the fact that you have been proven wrong. You do have stamina, but I love messing with a bully.

 

[PoliticalChic]

"Nobody said anything because nobody knew anything until...."


Sounds pretty much like you until you read my threads.....


...but, you get today's award for "Unintentional Humor."


Congrats.

Show something about the abandoned POW's from WWII that pre-dates May of 1989.
I'm looking at a copy of CHAIN OF PRISONERS at this very moment. Just checked it to make sure I was still listed as one of the sponsors for the research and publication. Yup, still there.

You are a bully PC. I noticed that whenever someone disagreed with your thesis you attacked them with insults and name calling rather than debate and discussion. You use normal internet tactics to attempt to belittle those who dare contest your opinions. If that doesn't work you hit them with an avalanche of copy and paste crap and challage them to "prove you are wrong". When you get proven wrong you just blow it off, make some more insults, call some names and ignore the fact that you have been proven wrong. You do have stamina, but I love messing with a bully.

I can save you the trouble of having to make all those excused for your ignorance....


I'm really easy to get along with once you learn to worship me.





And....please......start using spell-check.

 

[SmedlyButler]

First, an apology,

I noticed one of us "lefties", in a humorous comment on your apparent 24/7 keyboard enslavement to a self declared cyber war on reality, hinted the time wasted may lead to some neglect of children. Now I don't know if you have children or not, (I'm trying to imagine someone desiring to spend enough time in your company even to procreate, but that's another subject) I myself would not suggest such a thing. It's one of the most egregious faults you can accuse someone of. Almost as bad as hinting at pedopilia without grounds. I'm sure you wouldn't do that, would you? You wouldn't hint that someone was a pedophile, especially without a shred of evidence? And if you did, even inadverdantly as a joke you would apoligise forthwith, especially if someone reminded you the suggestion of pedophilia is so abhorrent in these forums it is mentioned as verboten in the scant and laissez-faire list of rules governing this site. Anyway I'm taking it upon myself to offer an apology on behalf of those who feel you probably are not guilty of child neglect.

I am quite sure that if you had children you would not neglect them. As to other necessities of time management I assume your prorities are well ordered, (under your definition) even if your benchmarks may clash with ours, we who are not so willing to commit an exhorbitant amount of our alotted time to such an ignominiously misguided cyber war. I wonder what your benchmarks are? 1/4 inch of dust on the mantle? minimum amounts of alien growth in the fridge? a blouse no more than 5 days worn? a shower at least once a week? Never mind, I'm just curious, there is no obligation to answer personal questions.

Anyway, you say "If my OPs weren't relevant, why would you, in your ineptitude, be trying so hard....and so ineffectively.....to counter them? Why, dunce?" You must be mistaking me for some one else. I have not (after my first futile attempts to penetrate with reason that blast-hardened structure you probably refer to as your skull) wasted one millisecond of time "countering" your copied and pasted ventures into the Twighight Zones of history.

e.g. "Stalin and the USSR and Communism won WWll." Others have tried to impress upon you simple facts like the Berlin Wall fell in 1989, the USSR itself hasn't even existed for over two decades, and during those decades the U.S. has been the world's only super-power. That even to locate a broadly defined "Communism" in the World today you have to look to a couple of minor dictatorships, Korea/Cuba. Still you insist somehow Stalin wrung America's neck like a chicken. Well in the words of my buddy W. Churchill, "Some chicken, some neck".

Other than that I have to say I'm quite disappointed in your "Why? Dunce" rejoinder. I know you have hundreds of one-line comebacks you have spent countless hours scouring the internet to amass. You could have at least used one of them, they do add a slightly redeeming touch of humor to your otherwise irrelevant screeds. It seems an illiterate's insult, Dunce, Moron, and the like, are all you can muster when constrained by your own creativity.

Yeah, I've noticed you find it impossible to "construct" even a short, somewhat coherent original paragraph if left to your own talents... hence the well earned appellation..."PC, the Queen of Copy/Paste".

Okay, I have to fetch some laundry out of the dryer.

 

[Camp]

Show something about the abandoned POW's from WWII that pre-dates May of 1989.
I'm looking at a copy of CHAIN OF PRISONERS at this very moment. Just checked it to make sure I was still listed as one of the sponsors for the research and publication. Yup, still there.

You are a bully PC. I noticed that whenever someone disagreed with your thesis you attacked them with insults and name calling rather than debate and discussion. You use normal internet tactics to attempt to belittle those who dare contest your opinions. If that doesn't work you hit them with an avalanche of copy and paste crap and challage them to "prove you are wrong". When you get proven wrong you just blow it off, make some more insults, call some names and ignore the fact that you have been proven wrong. You do have stamina, but I love messing with a bully.

I can save you the trouble of having to make all those excused for your ignorance....


I'm really easy to get along with once you learn to worship me.





And....please......start using spell-check.

Dd you mean excuses "...for your ignorance..."?

 

[Camp]

FDR had to make a choice. The planet was entering a World War of the scope and dimensions never seen before. Weaponry had advanced to the point that nowhere on earth would be safe from total annihilation if an enemy chose to rain down total annihilation.

America was not the world power it is today. FDR knew without any doubt that the nation faced extermination if the wrong decision about sides and partners were made. America could choose to side with the fascist in Germany, Italy, Hungary and Japan, or he could chose the side of England, France, the nations of western Europe, Australia, and Russia.

FDR made the choice to fight on the side that would defeat the fascist. The fascist have never gotten over it.

You are as dumb as asphalt.

It is eminently simple.....almost as simple as you are....to prove same.


1. "FDR knew without any doubt that the nation faced extermination if the wrong decision about sides...."

FDR was as clueless as you are.
a. Due to cuts in military spending through the 30’s as a percentage of the federal budget, the United States was woefully unprepared for war. The US was 17th in the world in military strength, and this ultimately let us into a two-ocean war.
"FDR Goes To War," by Folsom and Folsom

b. FDR did very little for the Army either with its size or weapons and during the 1930s, his defense budgets were cut to the bone. To quote George Marshall's words to FDR in May 1940: "If you don't do something...and do it right away, I don't know what is going to happen to this country". FDR had underestimated the Japanese and the Pearl Harbor attack devastated the American Navy and exposed the president's incompetence.
Ibid.

You truely have little knowdge about military affairs.

FDR did not have support of the public or funds to build up the American military. Nor would it have been wise to build up a military with obsolete weapons and weapon systems that were in use when he became comander in chief. What FDR did was begin a doctrine that is held strong to this day. Develope the best weapons and weapon systems and stay the best. He took what was available and quietly put the military and private industry to work at developement of advanced weapons and weapon systems.

His first order of business was to turn part an accepted work stimulus package into a procurment endeavor. 240 million dollars were allocated to building some ships for the Navy from the Industrial Recovery Act in 1933. The ships were the USS YORKTOWN and the USS ENTERPRISE.
With the building of those ships came the developement of the modern launch system, advanced radio technology, radar, night landing and night navigation and advanced weapons systems including modern fire control systems for carrier escorts and PBY's for anti-submarine activities and tactics.

FDR began the developement of the B-17 four engined heavy bomber in August of 1934. The B-17 became operational a year later.

The developement of the Dauntless Dive Bomber was begun in Nov. 1934.

The developement of the P-38 LIGHTNING began in 1937.

The developement of the P-41 MUSTANG began in 1939.

The developement of the P-47 THUNDERBOLT began in 1939.

The developement of the SHERMAN TANK was conducted with the transition of the LEE Tank into the more advanced GRANT TANK and with the developement of the turrent and other andvancements the SHERMAN TANK under FDR. Not as advanced as German tanks, FDR wisely had a tank developed that could be mass produced by auto makers in already built and operated facilities. It's size also solved transportation problems.

So FDR prepared industry to produce weapons and weapon systems that would be ready to produce as soon as the congress was ready to come up with the funds. The above list is only partial, but all the weapons listed are ones that had significant impact on winning the war.

As far as the Navy being devastated, the British and Germans lost their Battleships in combat pretty quickly. Battleships were obsolete. FDR concentrated on developing carriers. With the building of the YORKTOWN and ENTERPRISE the Navy was able to develope technology that would be installed and implemented on the entire US Carriar Fleet. FDR was absolutely correct in concentrating on the developement of the carrier fleet and ignoring pressure to invest in heavy cruisers and more battleships. The carrier fleet sent the Japanese fleet to the bottom of the ocean and broke down the doors leading to Japanese defeat.

Maybe respond to this post instead of worrying about my excuses and spelling.
You do know that Stalin wanted all of these weapons (not so much the Sherman) but FDR refused to supply him with any of our advanced weaponry. You understand that the US supplied raw material so Stalin only had access to weapons of Soviet design that were on the most part sub-standard to American weapons or weapons the US had determined were obsolete and required him to use costly tactics on the battlefield?

Part of the reason FDR is judged to be such a great President is because of the brilliance he showed in preparing the nation for war long before those in congress, the media and the public understood the true nature of unfolding events in Europe and Russia. In addition, while you call him a dupe of Stalin, in reality FDR manipulated Stalin and the Soviets into waging a costly war against the enemy our forces eventually had to fight after being bled by the Soviets in a long war of attrition.

You can refuse to recognize and acknowledge that the two weapon systems that were most important to American victory and reduced casaulties of American soldiers, sailors, Marines and airmen. Without FDR's support for the technological advancement of the carrier fleet and the developement of advanced aircraft such as the B-17, B-24 and advanced fighters, the war would have had far different results in both theaters.

 

[PoliticalChic]

You are as dumb as asphalt.

It is eminently simple.....almost as simple as you are....to prove same.


1. "FDR knew without any doubt that the nation faced extermination if the wrong decision about sides...."

FDR was as clueless as you are.
a. Due to cuts in military spending through the 30’s as a percentage of the federal budget, the United States was woefully unprepared for war. The US was 17th in the world in military strength, and this ultimately let us into a two-ocean war.
"FDR Goes To War," by Folsom and Folsom

b. FDR did very little for the Army either with its size or weapons and during the 1930s, his defense budgets were cut to the bone. To quote George Marshall's words to FDR in May 1940: "If you don't do something...and do it right away, I don't know what is going to happen to this country". FDR had underestimated the Japanese and the Pearl Harbor attack devastated the American Navy and exposed the president's incompetence.
Ibid.

You truely have little knowdge about military affairs.

FDR did not have support of the public or funds to build up the American military. Nor would it have been wise to build up a military with obsolete weapons and weapon systems that were in use when he became comander in chief. What FDR did was begin a doctrine that is held strong to this day. Develope the best weapons and weapon systems and stay the best. He took what was available and quietly put the military and private industry to work at developement of advanced weapons and weapon systems.

His first order of business was to turn part an accepted work stimulus package into a procurment endeavor. 240 million dollars were allocated to building some ships for the Navy from the Industrial Recovery Act in 1933. The ships were the USS YORKTOWN and the USS ENTERPRISE.
With the building of those ships came the developement of the modern launch system, advanced radio technology, radar, night landing and night navigation and advanced weapons systems including modern fire control systems for carrier escorts and PBY's for anti-submarine activities and tactics.

FDR began the developement of the B-17 four engined heavy bomber in August of 1934. The B-17 became operational a year later.

The developement of the Dauntless Dive Bomber was begun in Nov. 1934.

The developement of the P-38 LIGHTNING began in 1937.

The developement of the P-41 MUSTANG began in 1939.

The developement of the P-47 THUNDERBOLT began in 1939.

The developement of the SHERMAN TANK was conducted with the transition of the LEE Tank into the more advanced GRANT TANK and with the developement of the turrent and other andvancements the SHERMAN TANK under FDR. Not as advanced as German tanks, FDR wisely had a tank developed that could be mass produced by auto makers in already built and operated facilities. It's size also solved transportation problems.

So FDR prepared industry to produce weapons and weapon systems that would be ready to produce as soon as the congress was ready to come up with the funds. The above list is only partial, but all the weapons listed are ones that had significant impact on winning the war.

As far as the Navy being devastated, the British and Germans lost their Battleships in combat pretty quickly. Battleships were obsolete. FDR concentrated on developing carriers. With the building of the YORKTOWN and ENTERPRISE the Navy was able to develope technology that would be installed and implemented on the entire US Carriar Fleet. FDR was absolutely correct in concentrating on the developement of the carrier fleet and ignoring pressure to invest in heavy cruisers and more battleships. The carrier fleet sent the Japanese fleet to the bottom of the ocean and broke down the doors leading to Japanese defeat.

Maybe respond to this post instead of worrying about my excuses and spelling.
You do know that Stalin wanted all of these weapons (not so much the Sherman) but FDR refused to supply him with any of our advanced weaponry. You understand that the US supplied raw material so Stalin only had access to weapons of Soviet design that were on the most part sub-standard to American weapons or weapons the US had determined were obsolete and required him to use costly tactics on the battlefield?

Part of the reason FDR is judged to be such a great President is because of the brilliance he showed in preparing the nation for war long before those in congress, the media and the public understood the true nature of unfolding events in Europe and Russia. In addition, while you call him a dupe of Stalin, in reality FDR manipulated Stalin and the Soviets into waging a costly war against the enemy our forces eventually had to fight after being bled by the Soviets in a long war of attrition.

You can refuse to recognize and acknowledge that the two weapon systems that were most important to American victory and reduced casaulties of American soldiers, sailors, Marines and airmen. Without FDR's support for the technological advancement of the carrier fleet and the developement of advanced aircraft such as the B-17, B-24 and advanced fighters, the war would have had far different results in both theaters.

"Part of the reason FDR is judged to be such a great President is because of the brilliance he showed in preparing the nation for war long before those in congress, the media and the public understood the true nature of unfolding events in Europe and Russia."

1. If that is the argument for his 'brilliance," then he was far from brilliant.....more in your class, and in the 'dumb row.'

He did none of what you claim.

M. Stanton Evans wrote this:

"In lack of preparedness during the run-up to the war (while contriving to get us into it), thereafter in many phases of its conduct, and most of all in the end game played out with the Soviet dictator Stalin at Teheran and Yalta, Roosevelt made countless tragic blunders, … In particular, by various wartime stratagems he pursued and postwar policies he favored, he materially increased the strength of the Soviet Union and so helped consign untold numbers of suffering victims to its despotic rule.”



2. Careful students of the Roosevelt presidency knew that war must be near when FDR decided to change the tone of the political debate in Washington. For almost eight years, Wall Street bankers and corporate leaders had been his favorite scapegoats for explaining why the Great Depression was persisting. The premise of his New Deal, after all was that businessmen had failed and that government should regulate, plan and direct much of the American economy to break the hold of the Great Depression.”
“FDR Goes To War: How Expanded Executive Power, Spiraling National Debt, And Restricted Civil Liberties Shaped Wartime America” by Burton W. Folsom Jr. and Anita Folsom…


3. On May 16, 1940, Roosevelt addressed Congress and asked for more than a billion dollars for defense, with a commitment for fifty thousand military aircraft. He knew, also, that he needed the good will of business to win the war: no longer would he call them “privileged princes…thirsting for power.”



4. On May 26, 1940 his Fireside Chat signaled a new relationship with business: he would insure their profits, and assuage their fears that he would nationalize their factories.

a. “…we are calling upon the resources, the efficiency and the ingenuity of the American manufacturers of war material of all kinds -- airplanes and tanks and guns and ships, and all the hundreds of products that go into this material. The Government of the United States itself manufactures few of the implements of war. Private industry will continue to be the source of most of this material, and private industry will have to be speeded up to produce it at the rate and efficiency called for by the needs of the times…. Private industry will have the responsibility of providing the best, speediest and most efficient mass production of which it is capable.” On National Defense - May 26, 1940



Clearly you know nothing about the era, nor about Roosevelt.

Your motive is obvious in the way you keep muttering "....must defend Roosevelt....must defend Roosevelt...."





5. You reveal your lack of learning over and over.

FDR did very little for the Army either with its size or weapons and during the 1930s, his defense budgets were cut to the bone. To quote George Marshall's words to FDR in May 1940: "If you don't do something...and do it right away, I don't know what is going to happen to this country". FDR had underestimated the Japanese and the Pearl Harbor attack devastated the American Navy and exposed the president's incompetence.
Folsom, Op. Cit.


"... the brilliance he showed in preparing the nation for war..."

Clearly not.

You appear to be an idiot, don't you.

 

[Camp]

You truely have little knowdge about military affairs.

FDR did not have support of the public or funds to build up the American military. Nor would it have been wise to build up a military with obsolete weapons and weapon systems that were in use when he became comander in chief. What FDR did was begin a doctrine that is held strong to this day. Develope the best weapons and weapon systems and stay the best. He took what was available and quietly put the military and private industry to work at developement of advanced weapons and weapon systems.

His first order of business was to turn part an accepted work stimulus package into a procurment endeavor. 240 million dollars were allocated to building some ships for the Navy from the Industrial Recovery Act in 1933. The ships were the USS YORKTOWN and the USS ENTERPRISE.
With the building of those ships came the developement of the modern launch system, advanced radio technology, radar, night landing and night navigation and advanced weapons systems including modern fire control systems for carrier escorts and PBY's for anti-submarine activities and tactics.

FDR began the developement of the B-17 four engined heavy bomber in August of 1934. The B-17 became operational a year later.

The developement of the Dauntless Dive Bomber was begun in Nov. 1934.

The developement of the P-38 LIGHTNING began in 1937.

The developement of the P-41 MUSTANG began in 1939.

The developement of the P-47 THUNDERBOLT began in 1939.

The developement of the SHERMAN TANK was conducted with the transition of the LEE Tank into the more advanced GRANT TANK and with the developement of the turrent and other andvancements the SHERMAN TANK under FDR. Not as advanced as German tanks, FDR wisely had a tank developed that could be mass produced by auto makers in already built and operated facilities. It's size also solved transportation problems.

So FDR prepared industry to produce weapons and weapon systems that would be ready to produce as soon as the congress was ready to come up with the funds. The above list is only partial, but all the weapons listed are ones that had significant impact on winning the war.

As far as the Navy being devastated, the British and Germans lost their Battleships in combat pretty quickly. Battleships were obsolete. FDR concentrated on developing carriers. With the building of the YORKTOWN and ENTERPRISE the Navy was able to develope technology that would be installed and implemented on the entire US Carriar Fleet. FDR was absolutely correct in concentrating on the developement of the carrier fleet and ignoring pressure to invest in heavy cruisers and more battleships. The carrier fleet sent the Japanese fleet to the bottom of the ocean and broke down the doors leading to Japanese defeat.

Maybe respond to this post instead of worrying about my excuses and spelling.
You do know that Stalin wanted all of these weapons (not so much the Sherman) but FDR refused to supply him with any of our advanced weaponry. You understand that the US supplied raw material so Stalin only had access to weapons of Soviet design that were on the most part sub-standard to American weapons or weapons the US had determined were obsolete and required him to use costly tactics on the battlefield?

Part of the reason FDR is judged to be such a great President is because of the brilliance he showed in preparing the nation for war long before those in congress, the media and the public understood the true nature of unfolding events in Europe and Russia. In addition, while you call him a dupe of Stalin, in reality FDR manipulated Stalin and the Soviets into waging a costly war against the enemy our forces eventually had to fight after being bled by the Soviets in a long war of attrition.

You can refuse to recognize and acknowledge that the two weapon systems that were most important to American victory and reduced casaulties of American soldiers, sailors, Marines and airmen. Without FDR's support for the technological advancement of the carrier fleet and the developement of advanced aircraft such as the B-17, B-24 and advanced fighters, the war would have had far different results in both theaters.

"Part of the reason FDR is judged to be such a great President is because of the brilliance he showed in preparing the nation for war long before those in congress, the media and the public understood the true nature of unfolding events in Europe and Russia."

1. If that is the argument for his 'brilliance," then he was far from brilliant.....more in your class, and in the 'dumb row.'

He did none of what you claim.

M. Stanton Evans wrote this:

"In lack of preparedness during the run-up to the war (while contriving to get us into it), thereafter in many phases of its conduct, and most of all in the end game played out with the Soviet dictator Stalin at Teheran and Yalta, Roosevelt made countless tragic blunders, … In particular, by various wartime stratagems he pursued and postwar policies he favored, he materially increased the strength of the Soviet Union and so helped consign untold numbers of suffering victims to its despotic rule.”

M. Stanton Evans was an infant during the period being discussed. He is an ultra conservative journalist and politcial commentator that wrote STALINS SECRET AGENTS: THE SUBVERSION OF ROOSEVELT'S GOVERNMENT.

If Stanton's opinion and idea's about "...preparedness during the run-up to the war..." had been followed the country would have been "preparing" by supplying the military with obsolete weapons like the M-2 and M-3 tanks, aircraft designed in the 20's and a Navy with carriers that would have been sunk at the Battle of Midway. Soldiers would have been equiped with bolt action rifles instead of the semi-auto M-1 Garrand.

It's easy to literally be an armchair general. In the end there is one fact that is painfully obvious to those who criticize FDR. He was the leader of the USA who in the 1940's led the nation to victory over the two most powerful military powers ever assembled. Ever. The Japanese and German military were the most advanced and powerful armies, navies and air forces in history. FDR fought them both at the same time. He beat them into unconditional surrender. Both of them.

Arm chair generals, usually political pundits with agendas like to suggest they could have done better or that FDR somehow defeated the enemy because of luck or because his leadership was not so important and it wouldn't have mattered who was in charge. Fact is anyone who knows even a small amount of the military history of WWII knows the importance of developing the weapons and weapon sytems developed under the command of FDR. Those with minds buried in politics for politics sake and only politics and political agendas will never understand. If they are ever left in charge of the nations security and ignore the FDR Doctrine of preparedness that won WWII through and by technologically advanced weaponry we will meet our end.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Maybe respond to this post instead of worrying about my excuses and spelling.
You do know that Stalin wanted all of these weapons (not so much the Sherman) but FDR refused to supply him with any of our advanced weaponry. You understand that the US supplied raw material so Stalin only had access to weapons of Soviet design that were on the most part sub-standard to American weapons or weapons the US had determined were obsolete and required him to use costly tactics on the battlefield?

Part of the reason FDR is judged to be such a great President is because of the brilliance he showed in preparing the nation for war long before those in congress, the media and the public understood the true nature of unfolding events in Europe and Russia. In addition, while you call him a dupe of Stalin, in reality FDR manipulated Stalin and the Soviets into waging a costly war against the enemy our forces eventually had to fight after being bled by the Soviets in a long war of attrition.

You can refuse to recognize and acknowledge that the two weapon systems that were most important to American victory and reduced casaulties of American soldiers, sailors, Marines and airmen. Without FDR's support for the technological advancement of the carrier fleet and the developement of advanced aircraft such as the B-17, B-24 and advanced fighters, the war would have had far different results in both theaters.

"Part of the reason FDR is judged to be such a great President is because of the brilliance he showed in preparing the nation for war long before those in congress, the media and the public understood the true nature of unfolding events in Europe and Russia."

1. If that is the argument for his 'brilliance," then he was far from brilliant.....more in your class, and in the 'dumb row.'

He did none of what you claim.

M. Stanton Evans wrote this:

"In lack of preparedness during the run-up to the war (while contriving to get us into it), thereafter in many phases of its conduct, and most of all in the end game played out with the Soviet dictator Stalin at Teheran and Yalta, Roosevelt made countless tragic blunders, … In particular, by various wartime stratagems he pursued and postwar policies he favored, he materially increased the strength of the Soviet Union and so helped consign untold numbers of suffering victims to its despotic rule.”

M. Stanton Evans was an infant during the period being discussed. He is an ultra conservative journalist and politcial commentator that wrote STALINS SECRET AGENTS: THE SUBVERSION OF ROOSEVELT'S GOVERNMENT.

If Stanton's opinion and idea's about "...preparedness during the run-up to the war..." had been followed the country would have been "preparing" by supplying the military with obsolete weapons like the M-2 and M-3 tanks, aircraft designed in the 20's and a Navy with carriers that would have been sunk at the Battle of Midway. Soldiers would have been equiped with bolt action rifles instead of the semi-auto M-1 Garrand.

It's easy to literally be an armchair general. In the end there is one fact that is painfully obvious to those who criticize FDR. He was the leader of the USA who in the 1940's led the nation to victory over the two most powerful military powers ever assembled. Ever. The Japanese and German military were the most advanced and powerful armies, navies and air forces in history. FDR fought them both at the same time. He beat them into unconditional surrender. Both of them.

Arm chair generals, usually political pundits with agendas like to suggest they could have done better or that FDR somehow defeated the enemy because of luck or because his leadership was not so important and it wouldn't have mattered who was in charge. Fact is anyone who knows even a small amount of the military history of WWII knows the importance of developing the weapons and weapon sytems developed under the command of FDR. Those with minds buried in politics for politics sake and only politics and political agendas will never understand. If they are ever left in charge of the nations security and ignore the FDR Doctrine of preparedness that won WWII through and by technologically advanced weaponry we will meet our end.

"M. Stanton Evans was an infant during the period being discussed."

What a dumb obfuscation....and the default one from you.

I wasn't even born....yet clearly know more about same than you do.



Where did you learn that the correct response to a fact, a truth, is to bring up something about the person speaking the truth???


Government schooling at it's finest.




"He was the leader of the USA who in the 1940's blah blah blah....."

Then you amble off ignoring the facts that show you to be the dolt that you are.

 

[regent]

Question:
Is the conservative stand today on FDR that he should not have prepared America for war, or that FDR's preparing for war brought the war to America? Conservatives seem able to go either way depending.
In any case the Republicans fought FDR on his war preparations and in some instances FDR simply ignored the Republican isolationists and prepared anyway.
So again, do Republicans today approve or dissaprove of FDR's fight for wartime preparations, should FDR have done more, less or did he do it just right?