Why Did FDR Censor Criticism of Stalin?

[Unkotare]

Were I to appraise FDR on my own, I would rate FDR as America's greatest president

Then do so. Explain why you think so, and explain away his many misdeeds if you can.

 

[Peterf]

How many noted historians and presidential experts does America have to ask for a valid appraisal?

How about you forego the fallacy and provide your own appraisal? Why not put on your big-boy pants and defend or renounce the scumbag FDR's actions for yourself? Why not refute or admit the many, many facts that PC has produced on the subject? Why not try to think for yourself for once?

What you mean is think like you. Not a chance.
When a budding youth I did know more than the experts but over the years that has somewhat changed. Today, I think it possible that 238 of America's top historians and presidential experts might know perhaps a little more history than I do, but then I'm the type that believes my medical doctor may know a wee bit more about medicine than I do.
Were I to appraise FDR on my own, I would rate FDR as America's greatest president, and I'm pleased the authorities agree with me.

When a doctor gives a medical opinion it may or may not be shown to be correct. It is in principal subject to falsification like any other scientific statement.

When an historian expresses an opinion regarding someone's 'greatness' it is just an opinion. What the opinion will be can be accurately predicted if the historian's political stance is known. If the historian is a leftist he will opine that FDR was the cat's knees or the bee's whiskers or whatever the saying is.

 

[Peterf]

Reggie....do you agree that the majority of academics are of a Left-Wing persuasion?
I'm not changing the subject.....


And, would you agree that one's political outlook has an effect on how one perceives, reports things?
Case in point.....there are far, far too many issues, subjects, events to report on all even in a thousand page book.
True?


So....how does one decide what to include....or exclude?


Example:
.... 24 months after the assassination of JFK, Arthur Schlesinger Jr., the Kennedys’ kept historian, published a thousand-page history of the thousand-day presidency without mentioning the assassin by name....or, more importantly, his communist affiliations.


Schlesinger....one of your 238 top historians.
Exclusions are how they edit history.


Get my drift?


You make a grave error in not considering which facts your historians leave out.

So do all historians leave out these facts or just Schlesinger?

Your vapid post means you got the point.

How impressive that you have so much in common with FDR! He, too, thought he was America's greatest President. And he died firm in the belief that he and his dear friend Joseph Stalin could set the world on the right course.

 

[regent]

Were I to appraise FDR on my own, I would rate FDR as America's greatest president

Then do so. Explain why you think so, and explain away his many misdeeds if you can.

If you have a reading problem or need things explained perhaps you can start with a junior high history text or even a book on tape? If you need a list of FDR books your local librarian might help. Good luck.

 

[Unkotare]

How about you forego the fallacy and provide your own appraisal? Why not put on your big-boy pants and defend or renounce the scumbag FDR's actions for yourself? Why not refute or admit the many, many facts that PC has produced on the subject? Why not try to think for yourself for once?

What you mean is think like you. Not a chance.
When a budding youth I did know more than the experts but over the years that has somewhat changed. Today, I think it possible that 238 of America's top historians and presidential experts might know perhaps a little more history than I do, but then I'm the type that believes my medical doctor may know a wee bit more about medicine than I do.
Were I to appraise FDR on my own, I would rate FDR as America's greatest president, and I'm pleased the authorities agree with me.

When a doctor gives a medical opinion it may or may not be shown to be correct. It is in principal subject to falsification like any other scientific statement.

When an historian expresses an opinion regarding someone's 'greatness' it is just an opinion. What the opinion will be can be accurately predicted if the historian's political stance is known. If the historian is a leftist he will opine that FDR was the cat's knees or the bee's whiskers or whatever the saying is.

And if that doctor treats your cold by getting you addicted to crack, he's a terrible doctor even if 10,000 people say he's great. And if that doctor treats your neighbor's cold by throwing you into a concentration camp, he's a terrible person no matter what anyone says.

 

[Unkotare]

Were I to appraise FDR on my own, I would rate FDR as America's greatest president

Then do so. Explain why you think so, and explain away his many misdeeds if you can.

If you have a reading problem or need things explained perhaps you can start with a junior high history text or even a book on tape? If you need a list of FDR books your local librarian might help. Good luck.

So you have nothing to say for yourself? You can't even attempt to defend a position? No wonder why you just keep repeating the same fallacy over and over. You apparently cannot do anything else. Gotta wonder why you bother, though.

 

[Camp]

Were I to appraise FDR on my own, I would rate FDR as America's greatest president

Then do so. Explain why you think so, and explain away his many misdeeds if you can.

If you have a reading problem or need things explained perhaps you can start with a junior high history text or even a book on tape? If you need a list of FDR books your local librarian might help. Good luck.

You guys are argueing over a book that has been labeled as just another kookie conspiracy book by some noted historians. That is what this thread is based on, the book American Betrayal by Diana West. She is not and never has been an historian. She is and always has been a conservative political commentator. Her book was at first given a good review by Front Page, a conservative online magazine, however, the positive review was quickly pulled and replaced by a very negative one after the book came under scrutiny by historians who labeded it a kookie conspiricy. The actual negative review was written by a well known and recognized historian. Persons having interest can research Front Page, Diana West and Ronald Rodash, the historian who tears her book apart.

 

[regent]

So do all historians leave out these facts or just Schlesinger?

Your vapid post means you got the point.

How impressive that you have so much in common with FDR! He, too, thought he was America's greatest President. And he died firm in the belief that he and his dear friend Joseph Stalin could set the world on the right course.

I hope FDR thought well of himself and his time in office.
It sounds as you were privy to FDR's last firm thoughts as he died; you should contact Fox, they might pay well to hear this latest FDR revelation?

 

[Unkotare]

Then do so. Explain why you think so, and explain away his many misdeeds if you can.

If you have a reading problem or need things explained perhaps you can start with a junior high history text or even a book on tape? If you need a list of FDR books your local librarian might help. Good luck.

You guys are argueing [sic] over a book ...

I'm not arguing over a book.

 

[GHook93]

My guess is less controversal then it seems.
(1) I think he justifiably feared a Soviet and Nazi alliance. That would be a tough combo. They had a pact prior to Hitler invading Russia. Imagine if Hitler joined forced with Italy, Russia and Japan. That would be enough to take out the UK rather easily and probably scare off the US from getting involved.

(2) I think he knew war with Hitler was inevitable, so he wanted to buddy up with one of the big kids on the block.

I do not think it was because they shared the same Marxist paradise plans. I know they planned to move quick into taking Berlin so that the Soviets wouldn't take it all. Sometimes the enemy of my enemy is a friend, but only until you don't need him anymore.

I do think the left over-rates FDR way too much (as the right to a lesser extent over-rates Reagan)!

 

[PoliticalChic]

Then do so. Explain why you think so, and explain away his many misdeeds if you can.

If you have a reading problem or need things explained perhaps you can start with a junior high history text or even a book on tape? If you need a list of FDR books your local librarian might help. Good luck.

You guys are argueing over a book that has been labeled as just another kookie conspiracy book by some noted historians. That is what this thread is based on, the book American Betrayal by Diana West. She is not and never has been an historian. She is and always has been a conservative political commentator. Her book was at first given a good review by Front Page, a conservative online magazine, however, the positive review was quickly pulled and replaced by a very negative one after the book came under scrutiny by historians who labeded it a kookie conspiricy. The actual negative review was written by a well known and recognized historian. Persons having interest can research Front Page, Diana West and Ronald Rodash, the historian who tears her book apart.

Did you read it?

 

[Camp]

If you have a reading problem or need things explained perhaps you can start with a junior high history text or even a book on tape? If you need a list of FDR books your local librarian might help. Good luck.

You guys are argueing [sic] over a book ...

I'm not arguing over a book.

But your arguements and allegations about FDR are coming from a book that has been discredited by historians. You may have other knowledge on the subject. For all I know you may be highly educated on the subject of FDR. What I've been reading on this thread seems to be based pretty much entirely on quotes and conclusions made by one non-historian political commentator in a discredited book. It would be interesting to hear what some recognized historians have said on the subject and published in a peer reviewed book or study.

 

[Unkotare]

You guys are argueing [sic] over a book ...

I'm not arguing over a book.

But your arguements [sic] and allegations about FDR are coming from a book that has been discredited by historians. ...

Not mine.

 

[PoliticalChic]

My guess is less controversal then it seems.
(1) I think he justifiably feared a Soviet and Nazi alliance. That would be a tough combo. They had a pact prior to Hitler invading Russia. Imagine if Hitler joined forced with Italy, Russia and Japan. That would be enough to take out the UK rather easily and probably scare off the US from getting involved.

(2) I think he knew war with Hitler was inevitable, so he wanted to buddy up with one of the big kids on the block.

I do not think it was because they shared the same Marxist paradise plans. I know they planned to move quick into taking Berlin so that the Soviets wouldn't take it all. Sometimes the enemy of my enemy is a friend, but only until you don't need him anymore.

I do think the left over-rates FDR way too much (as the right to a lesser extent over-rates Reagan)!

" I think he knew war with Hitler was inevitable, so he wanted to buddy up with one of the big kids on the block."

Sorry, G.....he knew no such thing.




1. He recognized the USSR in November of 1933.

2. He wasn't even prepared for the war with Japan in 1941.

a. 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 and Folsom, "FDR Goes To War"

b. 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.
Ibid.



3. On May 16, 1940, Roosevelt had 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. He suddenly stopped attacking the rich....
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.



Back to square one: why was he so in love with a homicidal maniac and his human-slaughtering regime????

 

[PoliticalChic]

You guys are argueing [sic] over a book ...

I'm not arguing over a book.

But your arguements and allegations about FDR are coming from a book that has been discredited by historians. You may have other knowledge on the subject. For all I know you may be highly educated on the subject of FDR. What I've been reading on this thread seems to be based pretty much entirely on quotes and conclusions made by one non-historian political commentator in a discredited book. It would be interesting to hear what some recognized historians have said on the subject and published in a peer reviewed book or study.

"But your arguements and allegations about FDR are coming from a book that has been discredited by historians."


Should be easy for you to show the errors.

Go right ahead.



I see six different sources in the OP.....

 

[gipper]

I'm not arguing over a book.

But your arguements and allegations about FDR are coming from a book that has been discredited by historians. You may have other knowledge on the subject. For all I know you may be highly educated on the subject of FDR. What I've been reading on this thread seems to be based pretty much entirely on quotes and conclusions made by one non-historian political commentator in a discredited book. It would be interesting to hear what some recognized historians have said on the subject and published in a peer reviewed book or study.

"But your arguements and allegations about FDR are coming from a book that has been discredited by historians."


Should be easy for you to show the errors.

Go right ahead.



I see six different sources in the OP.....

Historians....historians....historians....that is all we see posted by our friend.

Asking for details of FDR's greatness will not be posted. And refuting the facts of FDR's idiocy and treachery is merely an exercise in misinformation.

 

[Unkotare]

Historians....historians....historians....that is all we see posted by our friend. .

He's literally got nothing to say, but he can't help repeating himself anyway.

 

[regent]

Historians....historians....historians....that is all we see posted by our friend. .

He's literally got nothing to say, but he can't help repeating himself anyway.

Yep, one gets history from historians, not posters, not politicians, not from Parson Weems.
So if you were to try to dabble with some history from what source would you acquire the history if not historians?
Whatever the source I hope it would be better than your source for logic, even I was embarrassed by that sad attempt to create a fallacy when none existed. So your source for history is...?

 

[Unkotare]

Historians....historians....historians....that is all we see posted by our friend. .

He's literally got nothing to say, but he can't help repeating himself anyway.

Yep, one gets history from historians, not posters, not politicians, not from Parson Weems.

Studying history does not absolve one from the need to think. Are you capable of thinking?

 

[Unkotare]

Whatever the source I hope it would be better than your source for logic, even I was embarrassed by that sad attempt to create a fallacy when none existed.

I've explained your fallacy to you over and over again. Are you capable of learning?