Understanding FDR: By The Numbers

PoliticalChic

Diamond Member
Gold Supporting Member
Oct 6, 2008
125,023
60,511
2,300
Brooklyn, NY
1. In previous OPs, I've offered Dunn's theory of 'convergence,' meaning that FDR fervently believed that the United States was moving away from a free, capitalist economy, and toward a social welfare economy, while the USSR was moving away from a totalitarian central command economy toward a freer one....and therefore any accommodation with the Russians was....'progressive.'

There was, of course, no reason to believe that. And plenty of evidence of the opposite.

But FDR believed such a movement for the United States was a good thing.
Such an argument could be made.....




2. And I've pointed out that there were numbers of scholarly experts who concluded that there was no military necessity to bow to the wishes of Stalin, as FDR did, right up to allowing the penetration of his government by Stalin's spies, and to actually treat Moscow's agents as his closest advisers.
There were military experts who concluded that the USSR was not necessary for the West's victory over Nazi Germany.

Alas, to no avail. The acolytes continue to slobber all over FDR's boots...






3. But Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn asks the question, and uses mathematics, and I wonder if this argument will make any headway with the eyes-tightly-shut sycophants.....let's give it a shot....

In 1975, Solzhenitsyn set up the question by comparing America's historic aversion to alliance with czarist Russia to Roosevelt's rush to recognize a far more repressive and infinitely more violent Bolshevik Russia in 1933.

a. "On December 6, 1917, the U.S. Government broke off diplomatic relations with Russia, shortly after the Bolshevik Party seized power from the Tsarist regime after the “October Revolution.”
Office of the Historian - Milestones - 1921-1936 - Recognition of the Soviet Union, 1933

b. "Four Presidents and their six Secretaries of State for over a decade and a half held to this resolve," i.e., refusal to recognize the Soviet government.

That was written by Herbert Hoover, one of those four Presidents. He wrote it in his "Freedom Betrayed: Herbert Hoover's Secret History of the Second World War and Its Aftermath," edited by George H. Nash, published posthumously, obviously, in 2011, pg 24-29.







7. Before the Russian Revolution, the number of executions by the czarist government came to seventeen (17) per year, according to Solzhenitsyn.
He pointed out that, in comparison, the Spanish Inquisition, at its height, destroyed 10 people per month.

a. But, during the revolutionary years 1918-1919, Lenin's Cheka executed, without trial, more than one thousand (1,000) people a month.

b. I realize that the folks to whom this is dedicated will point out that FDR couldn't see the future, but as a further indication of the government that FDR put us in bed with, in 1937-1938, at the height of his pal, 'Uncle Joe' Stalin's terror, tens of thousands were shot per month. Oh, well.
We're talking of some 40,000 a month.





8. From Solzhenitsyn's "Warning To The West,"...
"Here are the figures: 17 a year, 10 a month, more than 1 ,000 a month, more than 40,000 a month! Thus, that which had made it difficult for the democratic West to form an alliance with pre-revolutionary Russia had, by 1941, grown to such an extent and still did not prevent the entire united democracy of the world — England, France, the United States, Canada, and other small countries — from entering into a military alliance with the Soviet Union, How is this to be explained? How can we understand it? " Full text of "Solzhenitsyn: The Voice of Freedom"

9. But this is hardly a question of FDR, alone. Historian Robert Conquest writes, in "The Great Terror," that the conscience of the world coalesced around the false condemnation and imprisonment of Captain Dreyfus, in France....but couldn't be aroused by that of thousands in Bolshevik Russia.

FDR's..., and the West's recognition and acceptance of the bestiality of the Soviets is what changed all of us.

It is the subject, in fact, of Diana West's best-seller, "American Betrayal: The Secret Assault on Our Nation's Character."
She describes the willful ignorance of Soviet brutality as "part Faustian bargain, part moral lobotomy."



And who was at the center of the loss of moral objectivity, the end of reality-based judgment?
That's right.

Franklin Delano Roosevelt.
 
The recognition of the USSR was pushed by industry and commerce business men. I've already proven that.
Just like in today's business atmosphere, it is the same group which wants immigration reform to bring in the illegals.

Our government is heavily subsidized by business and that subsidy is in the form of lobbyist and their funds to influence legislation.

So now that you know, are those in the business community communists? Are they law breakers? Monied men/women have no ethics and morals in politics towards their greatest goal which is profit at any cost to the American population at large.
 
The recognition of the USSR was pushed by industry and commerce business men. I've already proven that.
Just like in today's business atmosphere, it is the same group which wants immigration reform to bring in the illegals.

Our government is heavily subsidized by business and that subsidy is in the form of lobbyist and their funds to influence legislation.

So now that you know, are those in the business community communists? Are they law breakers? Monied men/women have no ethics and morals in politics towards their greatest goal which is profit at any cost to the American population at large.



1. "The recognition of the USSR was pushed by industry and commerce business men. I've already proven that."

Be serious, drop-draws.

What you have proven is that you have zero understanding of FDR, history, or politics.



2. FDR was a dedicated Sovietophile. That was his motivation.



3. FDR hated business, profits, individualism and the free economy.
While there were business interest in favor of his efforts toward the USSR, pointing toward same is merely camouflage and cover for the real motivations.



4. John Maynard Keynes, in a letter published in the NYTimes, December 31, 1933, warned “ even wise and necessary Reform may, in some respects, impede and complicate Recovery. For it will upset the confidence of the business world and weaken their existing motives to action.”

Even Keynes saw the danger in treating the nation’s capitalists as an enemy, as “the unscrupulous money changers,” as FDR called them in his first Inaugural.
 
The truth hurts when you see how unregulated business and financial institutions destroyed the US economy under GOP rule.
 
Political Chic is making assertions again.

1. “United States was moving away from a free, capitalist economy, and toward a social welfare economy”: and?

2. Some military experts who concluded that the USSR was not necessary for the West's victory over Nazi Germany: and absolutely incorrect

3. Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn had trouble with moral compass of the modern world: yet he returned to Russia

4. "'Four Presidents and their six Secretaries of State for over a decade and a half held to this resolve,"\' i.e., refusal to recognize the Soviet government:" And the worthwhile product was . . .?

5. 'Uncle Joe' Stalin's terror, tens of thousands were shot per month. Oh, well. We're talking of some 40,000 a month": Political Chic would have wanted to ally with Nazi Germany in WWII.

Conclusion: PC cannot evaluate empirical data and make common-sense logical conclusions
 
and she is the best at;

beating-a-dead-horse-o.gif
 
Political Chic is making assertions again.

1. “United States was moving away from a free, capitalist economy, and toward a social welfare economy”: and?

2. Some military experts who concluded that the USSR was not necessary for the West's victory over Nazi Germany: and absolutely incorrect

3. Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn had trouble with moral compass of the modern world: yet he returned to Russia

4. "'Four Presidents and their six Secretaries of State for over a decade and a half held to this resolve,"\' i.e., refusal to recognize the Soviet government:" And the worthwhile product was . . .?

5. 'Uncle Joe' Stalin's terror, tens of thousands were shot per month. Oh, well. We're talking of some 40,000 a month": Political Chic would have wanted to ally with Nazi Germany in WWII.

Conclusion: PC cannot evaluate empirical data and make common-sense logical conclusions






"Conclusion: PC cannot evaluate empirical data and make common-sense logical conclusions"

Easy enough to prove that's untrue.

Watch:


Conclusion: You're a dope.
 
Political Chic is making assertions again.

1. “United States was moving away from a free, capitalist economy, and toward a social welfare economy”: and?

2. Some military experts who concluded that the USSR was not necessary for the West's victory over Nazi Germany: and absolutely incorrect

3. Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn had trouble with moral compass of the modern world: yet he returned to Russia

4. "'Four Presidents and their six Secretaries of State for over a decade and a half held to this resolve,"\' i.e., refusal to recognize the Soviet government:" And the worthwhile product was . . .?

5. 'Uncle Joe' Stalin's terror, tens of thousands were shot per month. Oh, well. We're talking of some 40,000 a month": Political Chic would have wanted to ally with Nazi Germany in WWII.

Conclusion: PC cannot evaluate empirical data and make common-sense logical conclusions

"Conclusion: PC cannot evaluate empirical data and make common-sense logical conclusions"

Easy enough to prove that's untrue. Watch: Conclusion: You're a dope.


No response except personal attack. You fail, yet again.
 
The truth hurts when you see how unregulated business and financial institutions destroyed the US economy under GOP rule.



Based on post #3, where my brilliant post completely eviscerated your silly attempt to take the blame from FDR and shift it over to capitalists......

....your post above is either obtuse, or disingenuous....

....the Liberal's inner cry for help finding its way to the outside.
 
OK....I've had enough fun abusing you two......

Back to the premise.


How could FDR have associated this nation with sociopathic USSR???


And....does anyone doubt that FDR's guidance moved the United States in the direction of postmodernism, of moral relativism....


...or, as Ms. West so aptly describes it,...

"She describes the willful ignorance of Soviet brutality as "part Faustian bargain, part moral lobotomy."





Neither of you has offered any indication that the numbers aren't correct....or that FDR didn't know of the slaughter of innocents by 'Uncle Joe,' (and he then turned Eastern Europe over to the butcher).....

...nor any way of assuaging he guild of allying with same.



Funny how often the anti-religion faction rants about 'deaths due to religion'- far from the truth- yet has, seemingly, no cognizance of the one hundred million humans slaughtered by the communist beasts.





To review:
FDR married the United States of America to the USSR by assuming an attitude of willful blindness, and/or acceptance of mayhem as public policy.

How do you explain FDR's behavior....

....and yours?
 
Last edited:
OK....I've had enough fun abusing you two......

Back to the premise.


How could FDR have associated this nation with sociopathic USSR???


And....does anyone doubt that FDR's guidance moved the United States in the direction of postmodernism, of moral relativism....


...or, as Ms. West so aptly describes it,...

"She describes the willful ignorance of Soviet brutality as "part Faustian bargain, part moral lobotomy."





Neither of you has offered any indication that the numbers aren't correct....or that FDR didn't know of the slaughter of innocents by 'Uncle Joe,' (and he then turned Eastern Europe over to the butcher).....

...nor any way of assuaging he guild of allying with same.



Funny how often the anti-religion faction rants about 'deaths due to religion'- far from the truth- yet has, seemingly, no cognizance of the one hundred million humans slaughtered by the communist beasts.





To review:
FDR married the United States of America to the USSR by assuming an attitude of willful blindness, and/or acceptance of mayhem as public policy.

How do you explain FDR's behavior....

....and yours?

If any president had the people behind him to convert the American
economic system it was FDR. It was a period of change for some nations, but America did not change economic systems; some of America's immediate problems like hunger and jobs were dealt with but when FDR left America her economic system was not fascist, not communist, not socialist but still capitalistic. The changes FDR made, such as Social Security could have been canceled by any Republican government but was not. Even Reagan worked to strengthen SS.
FDR used the USSR to bleed Germany while we assumed the coat-holder's stance. In any case FDR was number one with the people and number one with the historians. Hard to beat that rating.
 
OK....I've had enough fun abusing you two......

Back to the premise.


How could FDR have associated this nation with sociopathic USSR???


And....does anyone doubt that FDR's guidance moved the United States in the direction of postmodernism, of moral relativism....


...or, as Ms. West so aptly describes it,...

"She describes the willful ignorance of Soviet brutality as "part Faustian bargain, part moral lobotomy."





Neither of you has offered any indication that the numbers aren't correct....or that FDR didn't know of the slaughter of innocents by 'Uncle Joe,' (and he then turned Eastern Europe over to the butcher).....

...nor any way of assuaging he guild of allying with same.



Funny how often the anti-religion faction rants about 'deaths due to religion'- far from the truth- yet has, seemingly, no cognizance of the one hundred million humans slaughtered by the communist beasts.





To review:
FDR married the United States of America to the USSR by assuming an attitude of willful blindness, and/or acceptance of mayhem as public policy.

How do you explain FDR's behavior....

....and yours?

If any president had the people behind him to convert the American
economic system it was FDR. It was a period of change for some nations, but America did not change economic systems; some of America's immediate problems like hunger and jobs were dealt with but when FDR left America her economic system was not fascist, not communist, not socialist but still capitalistic. The changes FDR made, such as Social Security could have been canceled by any Republican government but was not. Even Reagan worked to strengthen SS.
FDR used the USSR to bleed Germany while we assumed the coat-holder's stance. In any case FDR was number one with the people and number one with the historians. Hard to beat that rating.



reggie.....

...interesting that you felt the need to excuse....apologize?....for FDR so much so that you pretend that the OP didn't exist.

But here's another chance: even though it was questionable as to whether we needed the USSR in the war.....not saying it wasn't convenient.....

....why did he ignore the brutal, oppressive regime and embrace his BFF, Uncle Joe?


40,000 murdered per month.....


...and this:
"Roosevelt, did not believe that the Soviets wanted to take over the Balkan states but wished only to establish “kinship with other Slavic peoples.”
Roosevelt's BFF ?Uncle Joe? ?


Do you excuse his sowing the seeds of acceptance of international homicide?
'In Our Name.'



Or...are you going to wait until Liberal 'historians' tell you it's alright to be outraged?
 
OK....I've had enough fun abusing you two......

Back to the premise.


How could FDR have associated this nation with sociopathic USSR???


And....does anyone doubt that FDR's guidance moved the United States in the direction of postmodernism, of moral relativism....


...or, as Ms. West so aptly describes it,...

"She describes the willful ignorance of Soviet brutality as "part Faustian bargain, part moral lobotomy."





Neither of you has offered any indication that the numbers aren't correct....or that FDR didn't know of the slaughter of innocents by 'Uncle Joe,' (and he then turned Eastern Europe over to the butcher).....

...nor any way of assuaging he guild of allying with same.



Funny how often the anti-religion faction rants about 'deaths due to religion'- far from the truth- yet has, seemingly, no cognizance of the one hundred million humans slaughtered by the communist beasts.





To review:
FDR married the United States of America to the USSR by assuming an attitude of willful blindness, and/or acceptance of mayhem as public policy.

How do you explain FDR's behavior....

....and yours?

If any president had the people behind him to convert the American
economic system it was FDR. It was a period of change for some nations, but America did not change economic systems; some of America's immediate problems like hunger and jobs were dealt with but when FDR left America her economic system was not fascist, not communist, not socialist but still capitalistic. The changes FDR made, such as Social Security could have been canceled by any Republican government but was not. Even Reagan worked to strengthen SS.
FDR used the USSR to bleed Germany while we assumed the coat-holder's stance. In any case FDR was number one with the people and number one with the historians. Hard to beat that rating.



reggie.....

...interesting that you felt the need to excuse....apologize?....for FDR so much so that you pretend that the OP didn't exist.

But here's another chance: even though it was questionable as to whether we needed the USSR in the war.....not saying it wasn't convenient.....

....why did he ignore the brutal, oppressive regime and embrace his BFF, Uncle Joe?


40,000 murdered per month.....


...and this:
"Roosevelt, did not believe that the Soviets wanted to take over the Balkan states but wished only to establish “kinship with other Slavic peoples.”
Roosevelt's BFF ?Uncle Joe? ?


Do you excuse his sowing the seeds of acceptance of international homicide?
'In Our Name.'



Or...are you going to wait until Liberal 'historians' tell you it's alright to be outraged?

Well, the USSR is gone, America is still here, hundreds of thousands of American soldiers remained alive, FDR is still rated America's best president, and conservatives are still crying Hoover, or someone, could have done it better. Do we need any more proof of a successful program, nation or president?
 
If any president had the people behind him to convert the American
economic system it was FDR. It was a period of change for some nations, but America did not change economic systems; some of America's immediate problems like hunger and jobs were dealt with but when FDR left America her economic system was not fascist, not communist, not socialist but still capitalistic. The changes FDR made, such as Social Security could have been canceled by any Republican government but was not. Even Reagan worked to strengthen SS.
FDR used the USSR to bleed Germany while we assumed the coat-holder's stance. In any case FDR was number one with the people and number one with the historians. Hard to beat that rating.



reggie.....

...interesting that you felt the need to excuse....apologize?....for FDR so much so that you pretend that the OP didn't exist.

But here's another chance: even though it was questionable as to whether we needed the USSR in the war.....not saying it wasn't convenient.....

....why did he ignore the brutal, oppressive regime and embrace his BFF, Uncle Joe?


40,000 murdered per month.....


...and this:
"Roosevelt, did not believe that the Soviets wanted to take over the Balkan states but wished only to establish “kinship with other Slavic peoples.”
Roosevelt's BFF ?Uncle Joe? ?


Do you excuse his sowing the seeds of acceptance of international homicide?
'In Our Name.'



Or...are you going to wait until Liberal 'historians' tell you it's alright to be outraged?

Well, the USSR is gone, America is still here, hundreds of thousands of American soldiers remained alive, FDR is still rated America's best president, and conservatives are still crying Hoover, or someone, could have done it better. Do we need any more proof of a successful program, nation or president?


" hundreds of thousands of American soldiers remained alive,..."


If you believe that FDR deserves credit for same.....

...well....that entitles you to a brand new OP....


Give me a few minutes......



And. see if you can respond without referring to the amanuenses.....er, 'historians'....this time.
 
I know you're trying your best to get the truth out. But, it's a waste of time! You're NEVER going to change the minds of the Libtards.:eusa_whistle:
 
reggie.....

...interesting that you felt the need to excuse....apologize?....for FDR so much so that you pretend that the OP didn't exist.

But here's another chance: even though it was questionable as to whether we needed the USSR in the war.....not saying it wasn't convenient.....

....why did he ignore the brutal, oppressive regime and embrace his BFF, Uncle Joe?


40,000 murdered per month.....


...and this:
"Roosevelt, did not believe that the Soviets wanted to take over the Balkan states but wished only to establish “kinship with other Slavic peoples.”
Roosevelt's BFF ?Uncle Joe? ?


Do you excuse his sowing the seeds of acceptance of international homicide?
'In Our Name.'



Or...are you going to wait until Liberal 'historians' tell you it's alright to be outraged?

Well, the USSR is gone, America is still here, hundreds of thousands of American soldiers remained alive, FDR is still rated America's best president, and conservatives are still crying Hoover, or someone, could have done it better. Do we need any more proof of a successful program, nation or president?


" hundreds of thousands of American soldiers remained alive,..."


If you believe that FDR deserves credit for same.....

...well....that entitles you to a brand new OP....


Give me a few minutes......



And. see if you can respond without referring to the amanuenses.....er, 'historians'....this time.

Since it is a history thread I thought it unnecessary, but maybe your're right it might be a good idea to use the historians for their take on history and presidents.
So anyway. historians, the noted ones, the ones that excel in the field of history and renowned for their historical works, have always rated FDR one of the top three presidents, but recently they rated FDR the best, bar none. In short FDR eased out Washington and Lincoln for the top spot. But not to worry, Bush was rated fifth worst president and Harding still at the bottom. I also want to thank you for becoming sort of like a comedy routine straight man.
As for the hundreds of thousands of lives saved, I think Churchill was even more responsible than FDR in the delaying tactics of the second front. Yep, Churchill should get some credit too.
 
Well, the USSR is gone, America is still here, hundreds of thousands of American soldiers remained alive, FDR is still rated America's best president, and conservatives are still crying Hoover, or someone, could have done it better. Do we need any more proof of a successful program, nation or president?


" hundreds of thousands of American soldiers remained alive,..."


If you believe that FDR deserves credit for same.....

...well....that entitles you to a brand new OP....


Give me a few minutes......



And. see if you can respond without referring to the amanuenses.....er, 'historians'....this time.

Since it is a history thread I thought it unnecessary, but maybe your're right it might be a good idea to use the historians for their take on history and presidents.
So anyway. historians, the noted ones, the ones that excel in the field of history and renowned for their historical works, have always rated FDR one of the top three presidents, but recently they rated FDR the best, bar none. In short FDR eased out Washington and Lincoln for the top spot. But not to worry, Bush was rated fifth worst president and Harding still at the bottom. I also want to thank you for becoming sort of like a comedy routine straight man.
As for the hundreds of thousands of lives saved, I think Churchill was even more responsible than FDR in the delaying tactics of the second front. Yep, Churchill should get some credit too.



Historians.....?

Are those the ones who work at and for Liberal universities?

Count on Liberal news organizations for good reviews of their works?

Are the talking heads on Liberal cable shows?


Oh....those guys.
 

Forum List

Back
Top