Why Did FDR Censor Criticism of Stalin?

[Peterf]

I have sent this on to several of my history professor friends.

They love to use your expository comments as classic reactionary propaganda.

They would do better to use them as factual background. FDR was an early admirer of Stalin. His simple-mindedness reach its nadir when he took Stalin's side against Churchill two decades later.

 

[Unkotare]

FDR was a master of propaganda. With the full cooperation of the media (or without their cooperation) the federal government was able to withhold information, re-direct focus, create fake heroes and convince the American people that "ignorance is bliss". Dumbocrats have been trying to recapture the age of ignorance ever since, with only moderate success.

"Only moderate success"? Look around now. They've been entirely 'successful,' at the great detriment to our nation.

 

[PoliticalChic]

FDR was a master of propaganda. With the full cooperation of the media (or without their cooperation) the federal government was able to withhold information, re-direct focus, create fake heroes and convince the American people that "ignorance is bliss". Dumbocrats have been trying to recapture the age of ignorance ever since, with only moderate success.

Indeed.

1. FDR cowed the press, as he did the courts. He saw to it that the press saw only sugarplums in the USSR.

a. Victor Kravchenko, the first Soviet defector, remarked on the effects of the propaganda: "Americans seemed intent on explaining everything in Stalin's favor, to the discredit to the democracies....What the Communists had not yet succeeded in doing in their own country- as the purges and the millions of political prisoners indicate- they had succeeded in doing in America!" Kravchenko, "I Chose Freedom," p. 467-468.

b. More than interesting was Kravchenko's explanation: the Russian people expected lies and read between the lines of the Soviet state-run press. The Americans, confident of the First Amendment saw no reason to expect lies from their press, so accepted propaganda transmitted by correspondents from Moscow, e.g., Walter Duranty; CNN.



For a current example, our pal reggie refuses to consider any facts or make up his own mind, until 'historians' tell him to do so.

This is largely emblematic of the American public.

 

[Unkotare]

This information should be communicated to historians at first chance, knowing this information they will quickly change their rating of FDR from America's greatest to America's worst.

There you go again. All you've ever got when scumbag FDR's opprobrious behavior is discussed is the same tired old logical fallacy. You can't really defend the scumbag and you know it.

FDR is well defended by noted by American historians, and needs no help from me, but can you defend the fallacy charge or even name it? If so can you cite a source that defends your fallacy charge, or is in fact even a fallacy?

There it is again, appeal to authority. You literally have nothing else, so you just repeat the fallacy over and over again; post after post, thread after thread.

 

[Moonglow]

Why did the US not want bad propaganda, probably because the Mr. Koch insisted upon it, since he was depended upon Soviet money to support his doing business in the USSR. In the US Mr. Koch was going broke until the USSR was recognized and allowed Mr. Koch to earn millions developing the USSR's oil fields with his oil fracking drilling expertise.

Why is not the Koch's in the same boat with FDR?

 

[Moonglow]

or maybe this:

· Broader Themes
[Churchill, Roosevelt, and Stalin at Yalta]

Criticisms of FDR and Stalin
for their Actions at Yalta

With the substantial benefit of hindsight, it is easy to be critical of FDR and his approach to certain issues at Yalta. For example, it has been argued, among others by Eden, that Stalin needed no encouragement to enter the war against Japan following the defeat of Nazi Germany.30 One can also argue that it was unrealistic to expect Stalin to honor the Yalta Declaration on Poland. Indeed, on the eve of Yalta, George F. Kennan, then the Minister-Counselor of the U.S. Embassy at Moscow, wrote a prophetic letter to his friend, Chip Bohlen, expressing profound skepticism about the prospects for cooperating with the Soviets in postwar Europe.31

Yet, especially given the general climate of public opinion in early 1945, I find persuasive the broad counter–argument enunciated at the 1982 convention of the American Association for the Advancement of Slavic Studies by scholar–diplomat John C. Campbell, who during World War II worked in the research division of the State Department. "No one in the U.S. government," he has held, "on the eve of victory over Germany and with the prospect of Soviet entry into the war against Japan, was prepared to break up the alliance over issues [in Eastern Europe] the American people would not understand, or to write off the world security organization before it was born."32

Stefan|Roosevelt & Stalin (3)

 

[PoliticalChic]

PC, we're all sympathetic to the fact that you wish Hitler has won, but sadly for you and your NAZI chums, he didn't.

What can we say except that WARS (much like elections) HAVE CONSEQUENCES?

You're a fool.

My posting facts that reflect poorly on FDR, and exposing your ignorance....you post slanders such as the above.

Your post is a lie....that makes you a liar.

Until the horrors of the Holocaust became known, Liberals/Progressives were of a single mind with the Nazis.....right down to teaching Hitler about eugenics.


You both owe me an apology, and owe a visit to the library to fill in the knowledge that you clearly lack.


You should be ashamed of yourself.

 

[Moonglow]

So far the system of geopolitical alliances have helped the world from more world wars.

 

[peach174]

FDR and and his good buddy Stalin had the same long term goal and desire for a 1 World socialist government. ....

Totally right!
The liberal Democrats embrace the communist manifesto.

 

[Indeependent]

Picture yourself just Post-WWII.
The US had no desire to go to war.
The memory of the Great Depression, a direct result of Free Market Capitalism, was still fresh in everyone's mind.
FDR probably believed the US could create Socialism Light.

And Hitler's regime, presumably not US friendly, was going to eventually adversely effect the US economy.

 

[Moonglow]

PC, we're all sympathetic to the fact that you wish Hitler has won, but sadly for you and your NAZI chums, he didn't.

What can we say except that WARS (much like elections) HAVE CONSEQUENCES?

You're a fool.

My posting facts that reflect poorly on FDR, and exposing your ignorance....you post slanders such as the above.

Your post is a lie....that makes you a liar.

Until the horrors of the Holocaust became known, Liberals/Progressives were of a single mind with the Nazis.....right down to teaching Hitler about eugenics.


You both owe me an apology, and owe a visit to the library to fill in the knowledge that you clearly lack.


You should be ashamed of yourself.

Progressive come in all colors,shapes and political parties. The earliest Liberals/Progressives were the religious in the 19th century and early 20th century.
the abolitionism were able to push for anti-slavery. Next was the push by the anti-saloon league to close all saloons which the end result was Prohibition on alcohol in 1920, but before that they was able to get Congress to reinstate the federal income tax used by Lincoln.The purpose of the income tax was to cover the federal revenues from liquor and beer production that would be lost when the Volstead act was passed.

The legislation of moral values is not a new issue, and the religious have pushed for the majority of the moral legislation produced in the nation..

 

[Moonglow]

FDR and and his good buddy Stalin had the same long term goal and desire for a 1 World socialist government. ....

Totally right!
The liberal Democrats embrace the communist manifesto.

Where is your proof that I embrace this? Or are you a psychic genius out of a job?

 

[peach174]

FDR and and his good buddy Stalin had the same long term goal and desire for a 1 World socialist government. ....

Totally right!
The liberal Democrats embrace the communist manifesto.

Where is your proof that I embrace this? Or are you a psychic genius out of a job?

Where did I mention you?

I said liberal Democrats.
They embrace the communist manifesto which is anti capitalism, progressive tax, a national bank, redistribution of wealth, equal pay and free education for all and Government knows what is best for everyone, because the people are not able to so themselves.
If you are for all of the above, then yes you embrace it.

 

[PoliticalChic]

or maybe this:

· Broader Themes
[Churchill, Roosevelt, and Stalin at Yalta]

Criticisms of FDR and Stalin
for their Actions at Yalta

With the substantial benefit of hindsight, it is easy to be critical of FDR and his approach to certain issues at Yalta. For example, it has been argued, among others by Eden, that Stalin needed no encouragement to enter the war against Japan following the defeat of Nazi Germany.30 One can also argue that it was unrealistic to expect Stalin to honor the Yalta Declaration on Poland. Indeed, on the eve of Yalta, George F. Kennan, then the Minister-Counselor of the U.S. Embassy at Moscow, wrote a prophetic letter to his friend, Chip Bohlen, expressing profound skepticism about the prospects for cooperating with the Soviets in postwar Europe.31

Yet, especially given the general climate of public opinion in early 1945, I find persuasive the broad counter–argument enunciated at the 1982 convention of the American Association for the Advancement of Slavic Studies by scholar–diplomat John C. Campbell, who during World War II worked in the research division of the State Department. "No one in the U.S. government," he has held, "on the eve of victory over Germany and with the prospect of Soviet entry into the war against Japan, was prepared to break up the alliance over issues [in Eastern Europe] the American people would not understand, or to write off the world security organization before it was born."32

Stefan|Roosevelt & Stalin (3)

I appreciate that you are one of the few who actually tries to offer rebuttal.

Rep on the way.


But to problem is in your source selecting a tiny slice of the time line...." "No one in the U.S. government," he has held, "on the eve of victory over Germany and with the prospect of Soviet entry into the war against Japan, was prepared to break up the alliance..."


Did you note that FDR embraced the USSR long before any war was on the horizon....

...and in the face of Stalin's slaughter of 5 million Ukrainians......

....and censored the press and his functionaries even when Stalin kidnapped 20,000 American soldiers.


No....the war effort does not answer the essential question of the OP.

 

[PoliticalChic]

So far the system of geopolitical alliances have helped the world from more world wars.

You do realize that this post is based on....conjecture, guess and supposition.

 

[regent]

There you go again. All you've ever got when scumbag FDR's opprobrious behavior is discussed is the same tired old logical fallacy. You can't really defend the scumbag and you know it.

FDR is well defended by noted by American historians, and needs no help from me, but can you defend the fallacy charge or even name it? If so can you cite a source that defends your fallacy charge, or is in fact even a fallacy?

There it is again, appeal to authority. You literally have nothing else, so you just repeat the fallacy over and over again; post after post, thread after thread.

On page 118, Introduction to Logic it states "When we argue that a given conclusion is correct on the ground that an expert authority has come to that judgement we commit no fallacy." In this case we have 238 noted historians rating FDR as America's greatest president, add to that, historical experts have been rating FDR as one of the top three presidents since 1948. I wonder how many authorities those ratings have involved over the years.
If you want to pursue formal logic you should educate yourself on the subject, more than that I cannot do for you. You expose ignorance that doesn't need to be.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Picture yourself just Post-WWII.
The US had no desire to go to war.
The memory of the Great Depression, a direct result of Free Market Capitalism, was still fresh in everyone's mind.
FDR probably believed the US could create Socialism Light.

And Hitler's regime, presumably not US friendly, was going to eventually adversely effect the US economy.

That might be true.....

....but he allied the United States of America with not only the most sociopathic regime in the world up to that time....and one which gave birth to Mao, and the Korean War,....

....and he did so long before any war in Europe emerged.




So......why?

 

[Moonglow]

Totally right!
The liberal Democrats embrace the communist manifesto.

Where is your proof that I embrace this? Or are you a psychic genius out of a job?

Where did I mention you?

I said liberal Democrats.
They embrace the communist manifesto which is anti capitalism, progressive tax, a national bank, redistribution of wealth, equal pay and free education for all and Government knows what is best for everyone, because the people are not able to so themselves.
If you are for all of the above, then yes you embrace it.

I am a liberal democrat, rather moderate, my wife is farther left, yet we do not subscribe to the Communist manifesto. Nor are we anti-capitalist( I owned and ran my own small business).
Are the Founding fathers believers in the communist manifesto since they want public education? Public libraries?
your statements makes no sense. many repubs enjoy using the municipal golf course paid for with tax dollars.

 

[Moonglow]

So far the system of geopolitical alliances have helped the world from more world wars.

You do realize that this post is based on....conjecture, guess and supposition.

no more so than your repeated, reiteration of redundant rhetoric.

You need not take the stance of a perfect human with me. I know that there is no such thing.

 

[Moonglow]

Picture yourself just Post-WWII.
The US had no desire to go to war.
The memory of the Great Depression, a direct result of Free Market Capitalism, was still fresh in everyone's mind.
FDR probably believed the US could create Socialism Light.

And Hitler's regime, presumably not US friendly, was going to eventually adversely effect the US economy.

That might be true.....

....but he allied the United States of America with not only the most sociopathic regime in the world up to that time....and one which gave birth to Mao, and the Korean War,....

....and he did so long before any war in Europe emerged.




So......why?

several reasons.

1.

Although relations between the Soviet Union and the United States had been strained in the years before World War II, the U.S.-Soviet alliance of 1941–1945 was marked by a great degree of cooperation and was essential to securing the defeat of Nazi Germany. Without the remarkable efforts of the Soviet Union on the Eastern Front, the United States and Great Britain would have been hard pressed to score a decisive military victory over Nazi Germany.

2.

As late as 1939, it seemed highly improbable that the United States and the Soviet Union would forge an alliance. U.S.-Soviet relations had soured significantly following Stalin’s decision to sign a non-aggression pact with Nazi Germany in August of 1939. The Soviet occupation of eastern Poland in September and the “Winter War” against Finland in December led President Franklin Roosevelt to condemn the Soviet Union publicly as a “dictatorship as absolute as any other dictatorship in the world,” and to impose a “moral embargo” on the export of certain products to the Soviets. Nevertheless, in spite of intense pressure to sever relations with the Soviet Union, Roosevelt never lost sight of the fact that Nazi Germany, not the Soviet Union, posed the greatest threat to world peace. In order to defeat that threat, Roosevelt confided that he “would hold hands with the devil” if necessary.

If FDR was in the same bath tub as Stalin, why would FDR condemn/embargo the USSR?