whitehall
Diamond Member
Actually the Trib and Hearst were only mildly critical of FDR and certainly didn't dare to reflect on the president's medical condition or focus on the president's inability to deal with international issues that might jeopardize the ever imposing "War effort" and provoke a visit from the FBI . Come on FDR defenders, we know the political climate during the last year of WW2. The only reasonable assumption for the democrat party handlers justifying FDR's long hazardous and rigorous journey to Russia for a freaking photo-op was to cast the U.S. in the worst possible light in front of the world. FDR looked like like a feeble old lady with a shawl and Stalin was fit and in uniform. That was the message the democrat party wanted to convey to the world.The first sentence of your nonsense post is factually incorrect making the basis for the whole post nonsensical and silly. Many of America's largest newspapers were anti-FDR including the biggest and most read newspapers in the country, including the Hearst newspapers and the Chicago Tribune.It's important to understand that the media at the time was one with the FDR administration and the media writes the history books. The media would keep information from the American public if it tended to benefit the democrat party and there would be no criticism of the administration no matter what. The truth is out there but you have to look for it. Stalin knew how fragile FDR's health was even though it was kept from the American public. He insisted that the "Big Three" conference would be held in the Ukraine where Stalin would have relatively easy access but FDR would have to endure a grueling and dangerously long trip. You have to wonder why the democrat administration would agree to such insanity except maybe they didn't care or they were hoping he would not survive because they thought Communism was the future in the post war years. It kind of gives a different perspective on historic events.