Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
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?
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?
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.
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, (Peoples Observer)): Roosevelts Dictatorial Recovery Measures. and January 17, 1934, We, too, as German National Socialists are looking toward America and Roosevelts adoption of National Socialist strains of thought in his economic and social policies comparable to Hitlers 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 411 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?
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?
No, history comes from primary sources.
I have sent this on to several of my history professor friends.
They love to use your expository comments as classic reactionary propaganda.
When you say you have friends, is that like when you say you're a Republican?
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.
Not my arguments - I don't even know which book you are talking about.
'Peer review'? What on earth are you talking about? Articles in scientific journals are subjected to peer review. History is not a science and interpretations of know facts vary enormously.
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...?
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...?
"Yep, one gets history from historians, not posters,...."
That really depends upon who the historians and the posters are.
'Ahem.....'
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...?
"Yep, one gets history from historians, not posters,...."
That really depends upon who the historians and the posters are.
'Ahem.....'
Well, that's true. Some writers of history write history books to make money so they put some sensationalism in their history, some sex, some politics, or anything that sells books.
The problem with those histories, if they are indeed histories, is that some gullible posters then use that history on these boards to make a political point, rarely a sexual point. I think readers with a background of history can spot those books and even the ensuing posts as historical garbage, unfortunately some do not. So how can readers separate the garbage histories, those from the real thing? What would you suggest?
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...?
"Yep, one gets history from historians, not posters,...."
That really depends upon who the historians and the posters are.
'Ahem.....'
Well, that's true. Some writers of history write history books to make money so they put some sensationalism in their history, some sex, some politics, or anything that sells books.
The problem with those histories, if they are indeed histories, is that some gullible posters then use that history on these boards to make a political point, rarely a sexual point. I think readers with a background of history can spot those books and even the ensuing posts as historical garbage, unfortunately some do not. So how can readers separate the garbage histories, those from the real thing? What would you suggest?
"Yep, one gets history from historians, not posters,...."
That really depends upon who the historians and the posters are.
'Ahem.....'
Well, that's true. Some writers of history write history books to make money so they put some sensationalism in their history, some sex, some politics, or anything that sells books.
The problem with those histories, if they are indeed histories, is that some gullible posters then use that history on these boards to make a political point, rarely a sexual point. I think readers with a background of history can spot those books and even the ensuing posts as historical garbage, unfortunately some do not. So how can readers separate the garbage histories, those from the real thing? What would you suggest?
Keeping in mind we live in a time where re-defining terms, titles and even words are often left to the individual for the purpose of implementing a specific agenda, if one wishs to use the accepted definition by academia and recognized 'historians', historian's are people who have an advanced degree in history (in most circles a doctorate) and publish works on a regular basis. They may or may not work at paying jobs in the field. About 70% of them are professors, but they may work for other entities and intstitutions, but the published works requirment still applies. These are not absolute requirements, but the lack of them requires some impressive kinds of additions to the overall resume. Also keep in mind that "published works" does not have to mean books.
So the easiest way to determine the authers legitamacy as an actual historian is to review his or her resume. That is found on the book jacket under "About the author". For the purpose of online confirmation a google of the authors name is required.
Historians get paid to be historians. They must meet certain specific requirement to obtain a paying job as an historian. If they don't meet those requirements, they are not historians in my opinion. I prefere active professors of history because their works are peer reviewed by other recognized historians.
Studying history does not absolve one from the need to think. Are you capable of thinking?
No, history comes from primary sources.
Are you actually suggesting that the study of history does NOT require thinking?
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.
Not my arguments - I don't even know which book you are talking about.
'Peer review'? What on earth are you talking about? Articles in scientific journals are subjected to peer review. History is not a science and interpretations of know facts vary enormously.
The book in question is American Betrayal by Diana West. If you google 'Frontpage American Betrayal review' you should see a link at the top entitled 'Editorial: Our controversy with Diana West l Frontpage Magazine'. That will take you to the editorial explaining why they took down the positive review and replaced it with a negative one. If you want to read the actual review, click on the highlighted 'Frontpage review' in the first sentence of the editorial.
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.
Not my arguments - I don't even know which book you are talking about.
'Peer review'? What on earth are you talking about? Articles in scientific journals are subjected to peer review. History is not a science and interpretations of know facts vary enormously.
The book in question is American Betrayal by Diana West. If you google 'Frontpage American Betrayal review' you should see a link at the top entitled 'Editorial: Our controversy with Diana West l Frontpage Magazine'. That will take you to the editorial explaining why they took down the positive review and replaced it with a negative one. If you want to read the actual review, click on the highlighted 'Frontpage review' in the first sentence of the editorial.
Not my arguments - I don't even know which book you are talking about.
'Peer review'? What on earth are you talking about? Articles in scientific journals are subjected to peer review. History is not a science and interpretations of know facts vary enormously.
The book in question is American Betrayal by Diana West. If you google 'Frontpage American Betrayal review' you should see a link at the top entitled 'Editorial: Our controversy with Diana West l Frontpage Magazine'. That will take you to the editorial explaining why they took down the positive review and replaced it with a negative one. If you want to read the actual review, click on the highlighted 'Frontpage review' in the first sentence of the editorial.
This evening I was reading Andrew McCarthy's defense of Diana West's book, and it speaks to your post.
"...the neoconservative Cold War historian Ronald Radosh in a harshly critical Frontpage Magazine review, tellingly entitled “McCarthy on Steroids.” Dr. Radosh, an apostate from Marxism, portrays West as a “conspiracy theorist” practicing the species of “yellow journalism” that gives anti-Communism a bad name.
The charge lacks merit. As for yellow journalism, American Betrayal is exhaustively researched, as elucidated within its more than 900 endnotes. It is also duly deferential to the authoritative historical accounts—the work of such giants as John Earl Haynes and Harvey Klehr—notwithstanding Radosh’s inaccurate claims that West attacks them and ignores them when their conclusions diverge from her own."
You might find the essay informative...
Red herrings by Andrew C. McCarthy - The New Criterion
Because he willfully surrounded himself with Stalinist spies...American traitors who should be forever condemned for their treachery, but won't. FDR chose to listen to and follow the advice of those spies.
Why he did this, over the objections of many, is puzzling. The answer may be that FDR was just a dope...easily duped by those he thought highly of.
How one very simple foolish man can garner so much power in a constitutional republic, is frightening. And to think the office of POTUS now has even more power than did FDR.
You weren't alive then and neither was I. But I think FDR didn't really understand Stalin or Communism. America allied itself with the Soviets in a war to fight fascism, then the cold war came, cold war went. Communism and fascism both lost. Coincidence, maybe? FDR wasn’t some kind of divine oracle. He was elected 12 years by people suffering from the depression. I can respect THAT. People recognize evil and they reject it, eventually.
