Why Did FDR Censor Criticism of Stalin?

[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.

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..

One hardly knows where to begin.


Let's stipulate that this is your attempt to shield FDR from due criticism.....

....and focus on this: "...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."



And I'll provide a tutorial for you on taxation and it's provenance: communism.



1. The Civil War produced the first tax on personal income: the Revenue Act of 1861. Interestingly, it was called an ‘indirect’ tax, defined as taxing an ‘event:’ a tax on the event of receiving income….therefore it didn’t have to be ‘apportioned,’ merely imposed uniformly throughout all areas “not in rebellion.”

a. The tax was moderately progressive, 3% on all income over $800. This meant that most workers didn’t have to pay any tax. Revenue Act of 1861 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


2. The following year, due to a greater need, Congress increased both the rates and the progressivity. The exemption was lowered to $600 @ 3%, and a new 5% on income over $10,000. This, then was the first “progressive,” not flat tax. The law also imposed a duty on paymasters to deduct and withhold the income tax, and to send the withheld tax to the Commissioner of Internal Revenue. Revenue Act of 1862 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

a. After the war exemptions were increased, and rates lowered, and in 1872, the tax was abolished.



b. But, having had a taste of taking and using free money, politicians passed more than 60 bills designed to reinstate the income tax over the next 20 years.
David G. Davies, “United States Taxes and Tax Policy,” p. 22.





3. Socialist, Populist, and Progressive movements paralleled this move, and this desire based on “taxing the rich.” In 1894, the Democrat-controlled Congress passed a bill that included a flat income tax…but part included taxes on income from real estate and personal property, and this triggered a court challenge as a direct tax infracting the Constitution’s apportionment rule,…

a. Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Company, 157 U.S. 429 (1895), aff'd on reh'g, 158 U.S. 601 (1895), with a ruling of 5–4, was a landmark case in which the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that the unapportioned income taxes on interest, dividends and rents imposed by the Income Tax Act of 1894 were, in effect, direct taxes, and were unconstitutional because they violated the provision that direct taxes be apportioned.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pollock_v._Farmers'_Loan_&_Trust_Co.

b. Interesting decision, since the same principles had been upheld vis-à-vis the 1861 Revenue Act…. Springer v. United States, 102 U.S. 586 (1881),[1] was a case in which the United States Supreme Court upheld the Federal income tax imposed under the Revenue Act of 1864.
Springer v. United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia






4. The Progressives were horrified! They had been focused on forcing the “money class” to pay “in proportion to their ability to pay…’

.... which, essentially was the first half of “From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.” From each according to his ability, to each according to his need - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

a. The Progressives launched a campaign designed to reverse this decision, and that culminated with the ratification of the 16th Amendment, in 1913.




And.....BTW....same year Progressives ended federalism, by taking the election of Senators
out of the hands of state legislatures.


Progressives fought the Constitution and won.

 

[Peterf]

FDR beat the Nazis, and Republicans have clearly never forgiven him for that.

It was Hitler who declared war on FDR. Not the other way around. I don't think Republicans or anyone else should forgive FDR for that.

And was it really FDR who 'beat the Nazis'? I mean like single-handedly?

 

[PoliticalChic]

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.

peachy......you should include our pal, Drop-Draws....

....any who cast their vote for Democrats/Liberals/Progressives are giving the power of the government to the same views found in the Manifesto.....

...including:

11. Promote the U.N. as the only hope for mankind. If its charter is rewritten, demand that it be set up as a one-world government with its own independent armed forces. (Some Communist leaders believe the world can be taken over as easily by the U.N. as by Moscow. Sometimes these two centers compete with each other as they are now doing in the Congo.)

12. Resist any attempt to outlaw the Communist Party.


15. Capture one or both of the political parties in the United States.

16. Use technical decisions of the courts to weaken basic American institutions by claiming their activities violate civil rights.

17. Get control of the schools. Use them as transmission belts for socialism and current Communist propaganda. Soften the curriculum. Get control of teachers' associations. Put the party line in textbooks.

18. Gain control of all student newspapers.

19. Use student riots to foment public protests against programs or organizations which are under Communist attack.

20. Infiltrate the press. Get control of book-review assignments, editorial writing, policy-making positions.

21. Gain control of key positions in radio, TV, and motion pictures.

22. Continue discrediting American culture by degrading all forms of artistic expression. An American Communist cell was told to "eliminate all good sculpture from parks and buildings, substitute shapeless, awkward and meaningless forms."

24. Eliminate all laws governing obscenity by calling them "censorship" and a violation of free speech and free press.

25. Break down cultural standards of morality by promoting pornography and obscenity in books, magazines, motion pictures, radio, and TV.

26. Present homosexuality, degeneracy and promiscuity as "normal, natural, healthy."

27. Infiltrate the churches and replace revealed religion with "social" religion. Discredit the Bible and emphasize the need for intellectual maturity, which does not need a "religious crutch."

28. Eliminate prayer or any phase of religious expression in the schools on the ground that it violates the principle of "separation of church and state."

29. Discredit the American Constitution by calling it inadequate, old-fashioned, out of step with modern needs, a hindrance to cooperation between nations on a worldwide basis.

30. Discredit the American Founding Fathers. Present them as selfish aristocrats who had no concern for the "common man."

31. Belittle all forms of American culture and discourage the teaching of American history on the ground that it was only a minor part of the "big picture." Give more emphasis to Russian history since the Communists took over.

32. Support any socialist movement to give centralized control over any part of the culture--education, social agencies, welfare programs, mental health clinics, etc.

36. Infiltrate and gain control of more unions.

37. Infiltrate and gain control of big business.

38. Transfer some of the powers of arrest from the police to social agencies. Treat all behavioral problems as psychiatric disorders which no one but psychiatrists can understand [or treat].

39. Dominate the psychiatric profession and use mental health laws as a means of gaining coercive control over those who oppose Communist goals.

40. Discredit the family as an institution. Encourage promiscuity and easy divorce.

41. Emphasize the need to raise children away from the negative influence of parents. Attribute prejudices, mental blocks and retarding of children to suppressive influence of parents.

42. Create the impression that violence and insurrection are legitimate aspects of the American tradition; that students and special-interest groups should rise up and use ["]united force["] to solve economic, political or social problems.
The Communist Takeover Of America - 45 Declared Goals




None who vote for the Left have any way of deciding which aspects they agree/disagree with: you get all of the above.

 

[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.

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.

Of course that is not true.

I show documentation and links......

...you. 'Madame Olga, mind reader/fortune teller'

 

[Unkotare]

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 ...

If you had ever gotten further than an introductory course, you might have learned about defective induction. I've informed you about this at least twice before. You're either incapable of learning or realize you have no other means of trying to defend the scumbag FDR. Which is it?

 

[regent]

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 ...

If you had ever gotten further than an introductory course, you might have learned about defective induction. I've informed you about this at least twice before. You're either incapable of learning or realize you have no other means of trying to defend the scumbag FDR. Which is it?

So is that your evidence that the historians are incorrect?

 

[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?

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?

1. "....1941–1945 was marked by a great degree of cooperation and was essential to securing the defeat of Nazi Germany."

Who says so?

a. "Not only did FDR overlook the external evidence; FDR ignored the counsel of key experts at the State Department, which, at the time, was home...to an educated and experienced cadre of anti-Communists....who would be neutralized and purged....n 1937...the Russian research library at the State Department was broken up, the files on Communists, foreign and domestic, ordered destroyed. The second, in 1943. Both purges took place under Soviet pressure and even direction as when in March 1943 Foreign Minister Litvinov, incredibly, handed over a list of American diplomats the Soviets wanted fired....a "guilt offering to Stalin from Roosevelt"... West, "American Betrayal," p.193.

b. The reason for guilt? Some advisers had had the gall to suggest not only that the democracies could survive a Nazi conquest of the USSR...but that, in such an event, the United States should not recognize a soviet government in exile. George Kennan echoed those feelings.
Weil, "A Pretty Good Club," p. 106.

c. In a letter to FDR, dated January 29, 1943, William Bullitt warned Roosevelt about what would happen if he continued pursuing the policies of appeasement toward Stalin that formed the foundation of the American war strategy. He pleaded with FDR not to 'permit our war to prevent Nazi domination of Europe to be turned into a war to establish Soviet domination of Europe.' He predicted the Soviet annexation of half of Europe; George Kennan identified that letter as the earliest warning of what would be the result of FDR's policies. "For the President Personal & Secret: Correspondence Between Franklin D. Roosevelt and William C. Bullitt," Orville H. Bullitt, p. 575-590


No...we didn't need the USSR.



2. "As late as 1939, it seemed highly improbable that the United States and the Soviet Union would forge an alliance."

First, he ignored the Terror Famine by Stalin....
...then he ignored Stalin's treaty with Hitler....

...yet he turned over the atomic bomb to Stalin.

Insane, or what????



3. "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...."

This neither explains his rush to recognize the USSR, 1933, nor the advice of advisers that we didn't need Stalin.
Instead, he listened to Soviet spy Harry Hopkins who he had live in the White House.


So....he was a dupe....or clinically insane.
Which one?

 

[PoliticalChic]

On page 118, Introduction to Logic it states ...

If you had ever gotten further than an introductory course, you might have learned about defective induction. I've informed you about this at least twice before. You're either incapable of learning or realize you have no other means of trying to defend the scumbag FDR. Which is it?

So is that your evidence that the historians are incorrect?

"Historians" are academics.

Almost all academics are Leftwingers: career advancement depends on it.



1. Elizabeth Bentley identified up to 150 Soviet spies working in the Roosevelt administration. Her allegations were proven once the KGB archives were opened in 1991.
"Yet the consensus of several generations of American historians (backed by many journalists and other opinion leaders) routinely mocked, ridiculed, and dismissed her as a fraud and montebank."
Haynes, Klehr, and Vassiliev, "Spies: The Rise and Fall of the KGB in America," p.543-544.


a. The only possible explanation is the mentality- actually, the psychosis- of historians, journalists, and other opinion makers that makes them impervious, and even hostile, to facts. Even more so to the ineluctable implications of these facts, which are devastating to the conventional wisdom and venerated mythology. And this is the ultimate impact of Communist influence, the Communist conspiracy that Roosevelt and Truman laughed off: it is the complete subversion of logic itself. It is so simple, so irrational, yet it has happened: the complete separation of fact from implication. There is a name for the gaps between fact and implication, between implication and judgment....it is called "political correctness."
Diana West, "American Betrayal," p. 81.




They influence those not diligent enough to do their own research, and/or thinking.

 

[Unkotare]

On page 118, Introduction to Logic it states ...

If you had ever gotten further than an introductory course, you might have learned about defective induction. I've informed you about this at least twice before. You're either incapable of learning or realize you have no other means of trying to defend the scumbag FDR. Which is it?

So is that your evidence that the historians are incorrect?

Did you fail that introductory course?

 

[gipper]

If you had ever gotten further than an introductory course, you might have learned about defective induction. I've informed you about this at least twice before. You're either incapable of learning or realize you have no other means of trying to defend the scumbag FDR. Which is it?

So is that your evidence that the historians are incorrect?

"Historians" are academics.

Almost all academics are Leftwingers: career advancement depends on it.



1. Elizabeth Bentley identified up to 150 Soviet spies working in the Roosevelt administration. Her allegations were proven once the KGB archives were opened in 1991.
"Yet the consensus of several generations of American historians (backed by many journalists and other opinion leaders) routinely mocked, ridiculed, and dismissed her as a fraud and montebank."
Haynes, Klehr, and Vassiliev, "Spies: The Rise and Fall of the KGB in America," p.543-544.


a. The only possible explanation is the mentality- actually, the psychosis- of historians, journalists, and other opinion makers that makes them impervious, and even hostile, to facts. Even more so to the ineluctable implications of these facts, which are devastating to the conventional wisdom and venerated mythology. And this is the ultimate impact of Communist influence, the Communist conspiracy that Roosevelt and Truman laughed off: it is the complete subversion of logic itself. It is so simple, so irrational, yet it has happened: the complete separation of fact from implication. There is a name for the gaps between fact and implication, between implication and judgment....it is called "political correctness."
Diana West, "American Betrayal," p. 81.




They influence those not diligent enough to do their own research, and/or thinking.

I think you hit on an interesting point with that last sentence.

All Americans who endured the brainwashing in the government schools, have been told of the greatness of FDR and many other liberal statists. My thought is a great many American liberals fully accept the propaganda as truth and facts refuting the propaganda are meaningless to them. It could be that one of the many characteristics that define a liberal, is that they readily and fully accept what they are told by the state.

Thinking of the Soviet Union...I wonder what percentage of their population fully accepted the lies put out by state schools. The indoctrination was more thorough and complete in the USSR, than in the USA. But similarities may exist.

 

[regent]

So is that your evidence that the historians are incorrect?

"Historians" are academics.

Almost all academics are Leftwingers: career advancement depends on it.



1. Elizabeth Bentley identified up to 150 Soviet spies working in the Roosevelt administration. Her allegations were proven once the KGB archives were opened in 1991.
"Yet the consensus of several generations of American historians (backed by many journalists and other opinion leaders) routinely mocked, ridiculed, and dismissed her as a fraud and montebank."
Haynes, Klehr, and Vassiliev, "Spies: The Rise and Fall of the KGB in America," p.543-544.


a. The only possible explanation is the mentality- actually, the psychosis- of historians, journalists, and other opinion makers that makes them impervious, and even hostile, to facts. Even more so to the ineluctable implications of these facts, which are devastating to the conventional wisdom and venerated mythology. And this is the ultimate impact of Communist influence, the Communist conspiracy that Roosevelt and Truman laughed off: it is the complete subversion of logic itself. It is so simple, so irrational, yet it has happened: the complete separation of fact from implication. There is a name for the gaps between fact and implication, between implication and judgment....it is called "political correctness."
Diana West, "American Betrayal," p. 81.




They influence those not diligent enough to do their own research, and/or thinking.

I think you hit on an interesting point with that last sentence.

All Americans who endured the brainwashing in the government schools, have been told of the greatness of FDR and many other liberal statists. My thought is a great many American liberals fully accept the propaganda as truth and facts refuting the propaganda are meaningless to them. It could be that one of the many characteristics that define a liberal, is that they readily and fully accept what they are told by the state.

Thinking of the Soviet Union...I wonder what percentage of their population fully accepted the lies put out by state schools. The indoctrination was more thorough and complete in the USSR, than in the USA. But similarities may exist.

Of course, now it all makes sense. America is like the USSR where citizens were not allowed to criticize their leaders, and the poor Americans were forced to vote for FDR four times. That's four times. So are there any nations today that allow their citizens to vote as they wish? And worse, since American schools are agents of the state governments, then the states are also in this gigantic plot. So what is this gigantic plot all about?

 

[PoliticalChic]

So is that your evidence that the historians are incorrect?

"Historians" are academics.

Almost all academics are Leftwingers: career advancement depends on it.



1. Elizabeth Bentley identified up to 150 Soviet spies working in the Roosevelt administration. Her allegations were proven once the KGB archives were opened in 1991.
"Yet the consensus of several generations of American historians (backed by many journalists and other opinion leaders) routinely mocked, ridiculed, and dismissed her as a fraud and montebank."
Haynes, Klehr, and Vassiliev, "Spies: The Rise and Fall of the KGB in America," p.543-544.


a. The only possible explanation is the mentality- actually, the psychosis- of historians, journalists, and other opinion makers that makes them impervious, and even hostile, to facts. Even more so to the ineluctable implications of these facts, which are devastating to the conventional wisdom and venerated mythology. And this is the ultimate impact of Communist influence, the Communist conspiracy that Roosevelt and Truman laughed off: it is the complete subversion of logic itself. It is so simple, so irrational, yet it has happened: the complete separation of fact from implication. There is a name for the gaps between fact and implication, between implication and judgment....it is called "political correctness."
Diana West, "American Betrayal," p. 81.




They influence those not diligent enough to do their own research, and/or thinking.

I think you hit on an interesting point with that last sentence.

All Americans who endured the brainwashing in the government schools, have been told of the greatness of FDR and many other liberal statists. My thought is a great many American liberals fully accept the propaganda as truth and facts refuting the propaganda are meaningless to them. It could be that one of the many characteristics that define a liberal, is that they readily and fully accept what they are told by the state.

Thinking of the Soviet Union...I wonder what percentage of their population fully accepted the lies put out by state schools. The indoctrination was more thorough and complete in the USSR, than in the USA. But similarities may exist.

1. In the prescient novel, "1984," George Orwell's sort-of hero, Winston Smith, has the job "to overwrite the truth, to replace the history of what happened with a revised version. Winston enjoys his work and is good at it, yet at the same time he worries about the rewriting of history, and wants to know 'what really happened'." Winston Smith's role in 1984


2.Lest one think that the position isn't a real one, you should become acquainted with Victor Kravchenko, metallurgist, engineer, executive, and captain in the Red Army. And the first Soviet “defector.” On April 1, 1944, Victor Kravchenko left Washington for New York, where, at a press conference arranged by the NYTimes, he revealed the truth about the Soviet Union.

Two years later he published “I Chose Freedom,” which played a crucial role in the formation of public opinion in the formation of the incipient Cold War. Defectors like Kravchenko faced the same sort of barrage that McCarthy did later…and for the same reasons.



3. Kravcheko revealed that the Communists did in reality what Smith did in the novel. "Shamelessly, without so much as an explanation, it revised half a century of Russian history. I don't mean simply that it falsified some facts or gave a new interpretation of events. I mean that it deliberately stood history on its head, expunging events and inventing facts. It twisted the recent past--a past still fresh in millions of memories--into new and bizarre shapes, to conform with the version of affairs presented by the blood-purge trials and the accompanying propaganda... The roles of leading historical figures were perverted or altogether erased.... More than that, living witnesses, as far as possible, were removed. The directing staff of the Institute of Marx, Engels and Lenin in Moscow, repository of ideological truth, were removed and the more important people among them imprisoned or shot.


a. Kravchenko wrote the following as well....but it seems remarkably similar to the government schools here.

The "new history" became possible. To brand the shame more deeply on our minds, "study" of the new version was made obligatory for all responsible Party people. History classes met nearly every night in this period and lecturers from Sverdlovsk came to our town to help hammer home the lies, while most of us fumed inwardly. Whatever human dignity remained in our character was humiliated. But even the most gigantic lie, by dint of infinite repetition, takes root; Stalin knew this before Hitler discovered it. As I looked on I could see terrible falsehoods, at first accepted under pressure, become established as unquestioned "facts," particularly among younger people without personal experience to the contrary to bother them." Text collection



b. Kravchenko's defection was front-page news and prompted debate at the highest levels of government, up to and including President Franklin D. Roosevelt. Stalin demanded that he be turned over as a traitor--an automatic death sentence. FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover urged FDR to let him stay. On April 13, 1945, the day after Roosevelt died, Kravchenko received notice that his application for asylum had been granted. Searching for Tato - latimes.com



4. "Something very much like it did happen here, and is still happening, from the schoolroom, where 'political correctness' dictates curriculum, to the workplace where 'sensitivity training' conditions behavioral and thought patterns that didn't take hold back in the schoolroom."
West, "American Betrayal," p. 73-74.

 

[regent]

If you had ever gotten further than an introductory course, you might have learned about defective induction. I've informed you about this at least twice before. You're either incapable of learning or realize you have no other means of trying to defend the scumbag FDR. Which is it?

So is that your evidence that the historians are incorrect?

Did you fail that introductory course?

Never took an introductory course in logic but I sense an attempt to change the subject. Unable to destroy FDR's reputation in history you have moved to logic.
But I would be interested in seeing your deductive argument in a syllogism.
But for all the logic FDR is still in the number one spot, top of the heap, by the people and historians--and your logic?

 

[PoliticalChic]

So is that your evidence that the historians are incorrect?

Did you fail that introductory course?

Never took an introductory course in logic but I sense an attempt to change the subject. Unable to destroy FDR's reputation in history you have moved to logic.
But I would be interested in seeing your deductive argument in a syllogism.
But for all the logic FDR is still in the number one spot, top of the heap, by the people and historians--and your logic?

"Unable to destroy FDR's reputation in history....."

That's not the truth, reggie.....

The OP does so.


You simply choose to ignore same, and pretend it doesn't exist.

 

[regent]

Did you fail that introductory course?

Never took an introductory course in logic but I sense an attempt to change the subject. Unable to destroy FDR's reputation in history you have moved to logic.
But I would be interested in seeing your deductive argument in a syllogism.
But for all the logic FDR is still in the number one spot, top of the heap, by the people and historians--and your logic?

"Unable to destroy FDR's reputation in history....."

That's not the truth, reggie.....

The OP does so.


You simply choose to ignore same, and pretend it doesn't exist.

Then that takes care of FDR, reputation destroyed; I would suspect all those poor
historian's reputations destroyed at the same time, ah, the power of the boards.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Never took an introductory course in logic but I sense an attempt to change the subject. Unable to destroy FDR's reputation in history you have moved to logic.
But I would be interested in seeing your deductive argument in a syllogism.
But for all the logic FDR is still in the number one spot, top of the heap, by the people and historians--and your logic?

"Unable to destroy FDR's reputation in history....."

That's not the truth, reggie.....

The OP does so.


You simply choose to ignore same, and pretend it doesn't exist.

Then that takes care of FDR, reputation destroyed; I would suspect all those poor
historian's reputations destroyed at the same time, ah, the power of the boards.

Education is free to be ignored.

Some folks would rather be told what to think.

 

[Unkotare]

the poor Americans were forced to vote for FDR four times. That's four times.

Many dictators have been elected more times than that.

 

[Unkotare]

So is that your evidence that the historians are incorrect?

Did you fail that introductory course?

Never took an introductory course in logic

That explains a lot.

 

[westwall]

The question is hardly why FDR remains so popular....he was President during a successful war.....and provided so many things for average Americans...

..but why was FDR so in love with Stalin and Soviet communism?





1. FDR came into office March 4th of 1933. On November 16, 1933, President Roosevelt rushed to embrace....recognize...the USSR. If this act, based on FDR's additional pro-Soviet endeavors, was rational....then these folks must have been irrational:

"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" by George H. Nash, published posthumously, obviously, in 2011, pg 24-29.





2. Bear in mind, eight months earlier, journalist Gareth Jones had exposed Stalin's Terror Famine: "In the train a Communist denied to me that there was a famine. I flung a crust of bread which I had been eating from my own supply into a spittoon. A peasant fellow-passenger fished it out and ravenously ate it." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gareth_Jones_(journalist)

a. Malcolm Muggeridge " was the first writer to reveal the true nature of Stalin s regime when in 1933 he exposed the terror famine in the Ukraine. " Time and Eternity: The Uncollected Writings of Malcolm Muggeridge: Malcolm Muggeridge, Nicholas Flynn: 9781570759055: Amazon.com: Books

Over five million men, women and children starved to death by their government.....

a. So FDR knew of the Terror Famine...yet he enveloped Joe Stalin in " the cloak of his popularity..." Time Magazine, December 17, 1934.





3. Check the timeline. FDR didn't embrace the USSR out of a need in a fight against Hitler....in fact, at that time, FDR had a rosy relationship with Nazi Germany. So....why overlook the genocide?

a. May 11, 1933, the Nazi newspaper Volkischer Beobachter, (People’s Observer)): “Roosevelt’s Dictatorial Recovery Measures.” and January 17, 1934, “We, too, as German National Socialists are looking toward America…” and “Roosevelt’s adoption of National Socialist strains of thought in his economic and social policies” comparable to Hitler’s own dictatorial ‘Fuhrerprinzip.’

4. By early 1945, Germany's military situation was on the verge of total collapse. The Allies had met at Yalta between 4–11 February to discuss the conclusion of the war in Europe. Bellamy, "Absolute War: Soviet Russia in the Second World War," p. 648.






5. George Earle was a special emissary of FDR's to Europe...and returned in 1944 with proof that implicated the Soviets in the Katyn Forest massacre (In April of 1943, the mass graves of thousands of shot, bayoneted, and asphyxiated Polish officers were uncovered in the Katyn pine forest near Smolensk, Russia.)

Earle testified later at the Katyn Forest hearings that Joe Levy of the NYTimes, warned him that bringing an anti-Soviet report to FDR would be a career ender : "George, you don't know what you are going to over there. Harry Hopkins has completed domination over the President and the whole atmosphere over there is 'pink.'"
West, "American Betrayal," p.211.

6. On March 22, 1945, FDR wrote to Earle: "I have noted with concern your plan to publicize your unfavorable opinion of one of our allies. I do not wish you to do so. Not only do I not wish it, I specifically forbid you to do so."
He then ordered Earle to Samoa for the duration.






7. 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?
He covered for Stalin....no doubt about it.
No genocide, no massacres, no duplicity of any sort dimmed FDR's ardor for 'Uncle Joe."

Explain it?

Anyone?

Because, like all the "progressives" of the day, he LOVED Uncle Joe and envied his power.

 

[westwall]

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.

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?

1. "....1941–1945 was marked by a great degree of cooperation and was essential to securing the defeat of Nazi Germany."

Who says so?

a. "Not only did FDR overlook the external evidence; FDR ignored the counsel of key experts at the State Department, which, at the time, was home...to an educated and experienced cadre of anti-Communists....who would be neutralized and purged....n 1937...the Russian research library at the State Department was broken up, the files on Communists, foreign and domestic, ordered destroyed. The second, in 1943. Both purges took place under Soviet pressure and even direction as when in March 1943 Foreign Minister Litvinov, incredibly, handed over a list of American diplomats the Soviets wanted fired....a "guilt offering to Stalin from Roosevelt"... West, "American Betrayal," p.193.

b. The reason for guilt? Some advisers had had the gall to suggest not only that the democracies could survive a Nazi conquest of the USSR...but that, in such an event, the United States should not recognize a soviet government in exile. George Kennan echoed those feelings.
Weil, "A Pretty Good Club," p. 106.

c. In a letter to FDR, dated January 29, 1943, William Bullitt warned Roosevelt about what would happen if he continued pursuing the policies of appeasement toward Stalin that formed the foundation of the American war strategy. He pleaded with FDR not to 'permit our war to prevent Nazi domination of Europe to be turned into a war to establish Soviet domination of Europe.' He predicted the Soviet annexation of half of Europe; George Kennan identified that letter as the earliest warning of what would be the result of FDR's policies. "For the President Personal & Secret: Correspondence Between Franklin D. Roosevelt and William C. Bullitt," Orville H. Bullitt, p. 575-590


No...we didn't need the USSR.



2. "As late as 1939, it seemed highly improbable that the United States and the Soviet Union would forge an alliance."

First, he ignored the Terror Famine by Stalin....
...then he ignored Stalin's treaty with Hitler....

...yet he turned over the atomic bomb to Stalin.

Insane, or what????



3. "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...."

This neither explains his rush to recognize the USSR, 1933, nor the advice of advisers that we didn't need Stalin.
Instead, he listened to Soviet spy Harry Hopkins who he had live in the White House.


So....he was a dupe....or clinically insane.
Which one?

Both.