Witness To History

[PoliticalChic]

And reagan armed bin laden. And Lincoln extended the war by two years because he failed to identify men who could run the war. TR left early to visit Africa instead of avoiding WWI.

No one is perfect. The question is whether they marshall thier resources and respond to a need.

1. This is truly one of the most flaccid attempts to excuse Roosevelt to date.

What was the "need" to which Roosevelt was responding on November 16, 1933?



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)



3. 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. " [ame=http://www.amazon.com/Time-Eternity-Uncollected-Writings-Muggeridge/dp/1570759057]Time and Eternity: The Uncollected Writings of Malcolm Muggeridge: Malcolm Muggeridge, Nicholas Flynn: 9781570759055: Amazon.com: Books[/ame]

Think Roosevelt knew?
And the "need" was to quickly cover up the Ukrainian holocaust?
What a pal Stalin had in Franky R, huh?




Perhaps you should consider a tall drink and a short nap before you post again.

 

[bendog]

The only need of an excuse here, PC, is you. You require an excuse to hold FDR infallable.

 

[Unkotare]

The only need of an excuse here, PC, is you. You require an excuse to hold FDR infallable.

..........................

 

[Sunni Man]

The only need of an excuse here, PC, is you. You require an excuse to hold FDR infallable.

..........................

Ditto..........................

 

[PoliticalChic]

The only need of an excuse here, PC, is you. You require an excuse to hold FDR infallable.

An excuse?

Moi?


Only a Liberal would suggest that one need provide an excuse for revealing the truth.


Only a Liberal would suggest that FDR was 'infallible' [infallable (sic)???]?


And only a Liberal would fall so precipitously into Coulter's description of same:

" Liberals worship so many political deities that they must refer to them by initials, just to save time- FDR, JFK, RFK, MLK, LBJ, and O.J. Ever hear a conservative get weepy about “RWR” or refer to something as hokey as “Camelot”? Passionate adoration are the primitive emotions of a mob, sentiments generally associated with women, children, and savages,..."
Coulter, "Demonic."



You shouldn't have decided to forego that drink and nap......

...see the result?

 

[Steven_R]

You mean like how the letter W is enough to get Ann Coulter moist?

 

[regent]

You need to be able to THINK for yourself. This appears to be something you are incapable of doing. Even after all the terrible decisions and policies imposed by FDR have been revealed to you, you continue to believe the lies.

Sadly you are not alone. Many Americans fully accept the lies.

In thinking for myself I decided that historians, particularly the noted experts know more of history than I do, and even more history than all of we posters with our politics holding sway over our thinking apparatus. I also accept the premise that MD's know more medicine, lawyers more of law, and astronomers more of space than I do.
FDR is probably one of the presidents that has had more scrutiny than most, perhaps Lincoln a little more, Even FDR's dog Fala was involved in the research when accused of political malfeasance. Most books about FDR today are rehashes of things not so well known to the general public but now given a political slant, and it sells books to Republicans.
Would a revelation about Polk's presidency create a similar excitement?

The problem with putting one's trust in 'experts' is knowing which experts to choose. This really matters in the case of historians. Their trade is to select facts and then interpret them. A liberal historian worth his salt will be able to make a plausible case indicating that FDR was a wise as Solomon. A conservative historian will have no difficulty in portraying FDR as a naive fool. (My view as it happens). Your search for history devoid of a 'political slant' is doomed to fail.

Well this recent rating was by 238 of the top historians in the nation. Historians rating the presidents has also been going on since 1948 and since that time the ratings must involve over a 1000 historians. For a reputable historian to go too far out on a limb could be a disaster for his scholastic reputation and standing. Usually historians are somewhat agreed on facts and even the interpretation unless, and this is a biggie, they are writing a book and to make the book more salable to the public offer a different slant and some controversy.
For example, Charles Beard jarred the historical community with his Economic Interpretation of the Constitution, and later Beard recanted some of his charges but the questionable stuff was probably included to sell his book.

 

[gipper]

In thinking for myself I decided that historians, particularly the noted experts know more of history than I do, and even more history than all of we posters with our politics holding sway over our thinking apparatus. I also accept the premise that MD's know more medicine, lawyers more of law, and astronomers more of space than I do.
FDR is probably one of the presidents that has had more scrutiny than most, perhaps Lincoln a little more, Even FDR's dog Fala was involved in the research when accused of political malfeasance. Most books about FDR today are rehashes of things not so well known to the general public but now given a political slant, and it sells books to Republicans.
Would a revelation about Polk's presidency create a similar excitement?

The problem with putting one's trust in 'experts' is knowing which experts to choose. This really matters in the case of historians. Their trade is to select facts and then interpret them. A liberal historian worth his salt will be able to make a plausible case indicating that FDR was a wise as Solomon. A conservative historian will have no difficulty in portraying FDR as a naive fool. (My view as it happens). Your search for history devoid of a 'political slant' is doomed to fail.

Well this recent rating was by 238 of the top historians in the nation. Historians rating the presidents has also been going on since 1948 and since that time the ratings must involve over a 1000 historians. For a reputable historian to go too far out on a limb could be a disaster for his scholastic reputation and standing. Usually historians are somewhat agreed on facts and even the interpretation unless, and this is a biggie, they are writing a book and to make the book more salable to the public offer a different slant and some controversy.
For example, Charles Beard jarred the historical community with his Economic Interpretation of the Constitution, and later Beard recanted some of his charges but the questionable stuff was probably included to sell his book.

So, since many historians claim or assert something, it must be right. That is the conclusion you have made.

Why do you refuse to think for yourself rather than believe what you are told? The facts prove you and these historians wrong.

Is it not better to make one's conclusion based on the facts?

 

[Unkotare]

regent is wedded to a logical fallacy.

 

[PoliticalChic]

You mean like how the letter W is enough to get Ann Coulter moist?

Good to see another Liberal dropping any pretension of knowledge.


Get right to what you folks are best at, junior high school patter.



Come back the next time you require me to administer another spanking.

 

[PoliticalChic]

In thinking for myself I decided that historians, particularly the noted experts know more of history than I do, and even more history than all of we posters with our politics holding sway over our thinking apparatus. I also accept the premise that MD's know more medicine, lawyers more of law, and astronomers more of space than I do.
FDR is probably one of the presidents that has had more scrutiny than most, perhaps Lincoln a little more, Even FDR's dog Fala was involved in the research when accused of political malfeasance. Most books about FDR today are rehashes of things not so well known to the general public but now given a political slant, and it sells books to Republicans.
Would a revelation about Polk's presidency create a similar excitement?

The problem with putting one's trust in 'experts' is knowing which experts to choose. This really matters in the case of historians. Their trade is to select facts and then interpret them. A liberal historian worth his salt will be able to make a plausible case indicating that FDR was a wise as Solomon. A conservative historian will have no difficulty in portraying FDR as a naive fool. (My view as it happens). Your search for history devoid of a 'political slant' is doomed to fail.

Well this recent rating was by 238 of the top historians in the nation. Historians rating the presidents has also been going on since 1948 and since that time the ratings must involve over a 1000 historians. For a reputable historian to go too far out on a limb could be a disaster for his scholastic reputation and standing. Usually historians are somewhat agreed on facts and even the interpretation unless, and this is a biggie, they are writing a book and to make the book more salable to the public offer a different slant and some controversy.
For example, Charles Beard jarred the historical community with his Economic Interpretation of the Constitution, and later Beard recanted some of his charges but the questionable stuff was probably included to sell his book.

As you rely on 'historians' to make up your mind for you, this should interest you:

"CBS Sunday Morning had a segment on yesterday discussing how historians and journalists would view *. They interviewed the usual lackeys such as Dan Bartlett and David Frum extolling chimpy's virtues, but my mouth dropped when Historian Douglas Brinkley called Reagan one of the 5 greatest presidents! Did I miss something? Is the fact that there was never a formal investigation into Iran Contra, mean that the president and his administration didn't pursue their RW agenda and cover it up? Was he possibly given credit for ending the cold war when in fact USSR's involvement in a war in Afghanistan did more to precipitate it? Am I missing something here?"
WTF? Historian Douglas Brinkley calls Reagan one of the Top 5 Greatest Presidents - Democratic Underground



"... Historian Douglas Brinkley called Reagan one of the 5 greatest presidents!"


That sound?

Me, chuckling, at you gnashing your teeth.

 

[Moonglow]

1. "The leading academics find that the greatest modern Presidents are those that have made government bigger and more powerful, and have expanded the reach of the presidency, i.e., Woodrow Wilson and FDR. By the same token, those Presidents with a limited-government POV, such as Harding, Coolidge and Reagan, are treated dismissively by journalists and historians."
Hayward, "The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Presidents: From Wilson to Obama"

The problem is with historians there is a political bias.
Like Reagan having a POV of limited government, his expansion of the War on Drugs was just the beginning for freedoms lost from his presidency. Not to mention the Patriot Act.

 

[bendog]

1. "The leading academics find that the greatest modern Presidents are those that have made government bigger and more powerful, and have expanded the reach of the presidency, i.e., Woodrow Wilson and FDR. By the same token, those Presidents with a limited-government POV, such as Harding, Coolidge and Reagan, are treated dismissively by journalists and historians."
Hayward, "The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Presidents: From Wilson to Obama"

The problem is with historians there is a political bias.
Like Reagan having a POV of limited government, his expansion of the War on Drugs was just the beginning for freedoms lost from his presidency. Not to mention the Patriot Act.

In fairness to Reagan, I think he realized he was just at the wrong time in history to push his view of limited govt. He did what was politically possible with stuff like block granting fed programs to states. He realized he had lost the public opinion battle on medicare, so he allowed taxes to rise to fund it and soc sec. The war on drugs and abortion were issues that appealed to factions within his big tent, so he threw them a bone, realizing neither were going anywhere.

 

[PoliticalChic]

1. "The leading academics find that the greatest modern Presidents are those that have made government bigger and more powerful, and have expanded the reach of the presidency, i.e., Woodrow Wilson and FDR. By the same token, those Presidents with a limited-government POV, such as Harding, Coolidge and Reagan, are treated dismissively by journalists and historians."
Hayward, "The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Presidents: From Wilson to Obama"

The problem is with historians there is a political bias.
Like Reagan having a POV of limited government, his expansion of the War on Drugs was just the beginning for freedoms lost from his presidency. Not to mention the Patriot Act.

In fairness to Reagan, I think he realized he was just at the wrong time in history to push his view of limited govt. He did what was politically possible with stuff like block granting fed programs to states. He realized he had lost the public opinion battle on medicare, so he allowed taxes to rise to fund it and soc sec. The war on drugs and abortion were issues that appealed to factions within his big tent, so he threw them a bone, realizing neither were going anywhere.

There is a glaring fallacy in your post.

Simple put, growing government is akin to the drunk who tries to keep from tipping over by attempting to run faster and faster.



I hate to keep stepping on the clay feet of your political diety (I really don't) but the vaunted FDR did just that with Social Security:

The Social Security plan was that workers would pay for retirees, and, based on actuarial tables, those who died earlier than expected would add to the fund.

a. No one considered that life expectancy would increase?

b. No one considered that the balance of workers and retirees might change?

c. No one calculated the long-term costs?

d. Ida May Fuller, the first person to begin receiving benefits, in January, 1940, when she was 65- she lived to be 100. “…worked for three years under the Social Security program. The accumulated taxes on her salary during those three years was a total of $24.75. Her initial monthly check was $22.54. During her lifetime she collected a total of $22,888.92 in Social Security benefits.” Social Security History

e. “Social Security will pay out more this year than it gets in payroll taxes, marking the first time since the program will be in the red since it was overhauled in 1983, according to the annual authoritative report released Thursday by the program's actuary.” Social Security in the red this year - Washington Times

f. “…redeeming trust fund assets until reserves are exhausted in 2037, at which point tax income would be sufficient to pay about 75 percent of scheduled benefits through 2084.” Trustees Report Summary




Wasn't this the economics whiz you suggested was "infallible"?

 

[regent]

The problem with putting one's trust in 'experts' is knowing which experts to choose. This really matters in the case of historians. Their trade is to select facts and then interpret them. A liberal historian worth his salt will be able to make a plausible case indicating that FDR was a wise as Solomon. A conservative historian will have no difficulty in portraying FDR as a naive fool. (My view as it happens). Your search for history devoid of a 'political slant' is doomed to fail.

Well this recent rating was by 238 of the top historians in the nation. Historians rating the presidents has also been going on since 1948 and since that time the ratings must involve over a 1000 historians. For a reputable historian to go too far out on a limb could be a disaster for his scholastic reputation and standing. Usually historians are somewhat agreed on facts and even the interpretation unless, and this is a biggie, they are writing a book and to make the book more salable to the public offer a different slant and some controversy.
For example, Charles Beard jarred the historical community with his Economic Interpretation of the Constitution, and later Beard recanted some of his charges but the questionable stuff was probably included to sell his book.

As you rely on 'historians' to make up your mind for you, this should interest you:

"CBS Sunday Morning had a segment on yesterday discussing how historians and journalists would view *. They interviewed the usual lackeys such as Dan Bartlett and David Frum extolling chimpy's virtues, but my mouth dropped when Historian Douglas Brinkley called Reagan one of the 5 greatest presidents! Did I miss something? Is the fact that there was never a formal investigation into Iran Contra, mean that the president and his administration didn't pursue their RW agenda and cover it up? Was he possibly given credit for ending the cold war when in fact USSR's involvement in a war in Afghanistan did more to precipitate it? Am I missing something here?"
WTF? Historian Douglas Brinkley calls Reagan one of the Top 5 Greatest Presidents - Democratic Underground



"... Historian Douglas Brinkley called Reagan one of the 5 greatest presidents!"


That sound?

Me, chuckling, at you gnashing your teeth.

Well Reagan was not all bad he did vote for FDR. And I'm sure that one can find historians that support just about anything, particularly if there is a book involved, but it's the reputations of the historians and the numbers that are impressive. In any case keep trying.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Well this recent rating was by 238 of the top historians in the nation. Historians rating the presidents has also been going on since 1948 and since that time the ratings must involve over a 1000 historians. For a reputable historian to go too far out on a limb could be a disaster for his scholastic reputation and standing. Usually historians are somewhat agreed on facts and even the interpretation unless, and this is a biggie, they are writing a book and to make the book more salable to the public offer a different slant and some controversy.
For example, Charles Beard jarred the historical community with his Economic Interpretation of the Constitution, and later Beard recanted some of his charges but the questionable stuff was probably included to sell his book.

As you rely on 'historians' to make up your mind for you, this should interest you:

"CBS Sunday Morning had a segment on yesterday discussing how historians and journalists would view *. They interviewed the usual lackeys such as Dan Bartlett and David Frum extolling chimpy's virtues, but my mouth dropped when Historian Douglas Brinkley called Reagan one of the 5 greatest presidents! Did I miss something? Is the fact that there was never a formal investigation into Iran Contra, mean that the president and his administration didn't pursue their RW agenda and cover it up? Was he possibly given credit for ending the cold war when in fact USSR's involvement in a war in Afghanistan did more to precipitate it? Am I missing something here?"
WTF? Historian Douglas Brinkley calls Reagan one of the Top 5 Greatest Presidents - Democratic Underground



"... Historian Douglas Brinkley called Reagan one of the 5 greatest presidents!"


That sound?

Me, chuckling, at you gnashing your teeth.

Well Reagan was not all bad he did vote for FDR. And I'm sure that one can find historians that support just about anything, particularly if there is a book involved, but it's the reputations of the historians and the numbers that are impressive. In any case keep trying.

Schivelbusch, in "Three New Deals," discusses the fact that more scholarship and less genuflection is being applied to FDR's regime.


1. Scholars have discovered that totalitarian philosophies have a social-egalitarian component that adds to the mass popularity of such regimes. Thus, not only National Socialism, with its belief that its racial doctrine entailed the promise of equality for all members of the German people, or ‘Volk,’ but if one can look beyond the repression and terror, the New Deal can be seen as a series of economic misadventures achieved through the force of mass propaganda, and owing its success solely to America’s victory in WWII.

a. In an insightful analysis, John A. Garraty compared Roosevelt’s New Deal with aspects of the Third Reich: a strong leader; an ideology stressing the nation, the people and the land; state control of economic and social affairs; and the quality and quantity of government propaganda.
Garraty, “The New Deal, National Socialism, and the Great Depression,” American Historical Review, vol. 78 (1973) p. 907ff.

b. Garraty reminds that to compare is not the same as to equate. Yet, many still find Garraty’s analysis too hot to handle.
Raise your paw.



"...keep trying."

Now, now...it is hardly necessary to encourage me.

"For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light."
Matthew 11:30



and Luke, 1:79?

 

[regent]

As you rely on 'historians' to make up your mind for you, this should interest you:

"CBS Sunday Morning had a segment on yesterday discussing how historians and journalists would view *. They interviewed the usual lackeys such as Dan Bartlett and David Frum extolling chimpy's virtues, but my mouth dropped when Historian Douglas Brinkley called Reagan one of the 5 greatest presidents! Did I miss something? Is the fact that there was never a formal investigation into Iran Contra, mean that the president and his administration didn't pursue their RW agenda and cover it up? Was he possibly given credit for ending the cold war when in fact USSR's involvement in a war in Afghanistan did more to precipitate it? Am I missing something here?"
WTF? Historian Douglas Brinkley calls Reagan one of the Top 5 Greatest Presidents - Democratic Underground



"... Historian Douglas Brinkley called Reagan one of the 5 greatest presidents!"


That sound?

Me, chuckling, at you gnashing your teeth.

Well Reagan was not all bad he did vote for FDR. And I'm sure that one can find historians that support just about anything, particularly if there is a book involved, but it's the reputations of the historians and the numbers that are impressive. In any case keep trying.

Schivelbusch, in "Three New Deals," discusses the fact that more scholarship and less genuflection is being applied to FDR's regime.


1. Scholars have discovered that totalitarian philosophies have a social-egalitarian component that adds to the mass popularity of such regimes. Thus, not only National Socialism, with its belief that its racial doctrine entailed the promise of equality for all members of the German people, or ‘Volk,’ but if one can look beyond the repression and terror, the New Deal can be seen as a series of economic misadventures achieved through the force of mass propaganda, and owing its success solely to America’s victory in WWII.

a. In an insightful analysis, John A. Garraty compared Roosevelt’s New Deal with aspects of the Third Reich: a strong leader; an ideology stressing the nation, the people and the land; state control of economic and social affairs; and the quality and quantity of government propaganda.
Garraty, “The New Deal, National Socialism, and the Great Depression,” American Historical Review, vol. 78 (1973) p. 907ff.

b. Garraty reminds that to compare is not the same as to equate. Yet, many still find Garraty’s analysis too hot to handle.
Raise your paw.



"...keep trying."

Now, now...it is hardly necessary to encourage me.

"For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light."
Matthew 11:30



and Luke, 1:79?

Well l'll put my 238 renowned historians up against Schivelbusch anytime.

 

[bendog]

what was that econ study about FDR's programs that allowed for market oligarchy or monopoly in exchange for more pay, that at least in theory hurt recovery? I was sold in part. But the irony is that FDR only managed full employment AFTER he virtually nationalized the entire economy to mobilize for war. Of course, Hitler accomplished the same. FDR did so unwillingly, and Truman's claim to greatness stems largely from his transitioning back to private markets.

 

[PoliticalChic]

what was that econ study about FDR's programs that allowed for market oligarchy or monopoly in exchange for more pay, that at least in theory hurt recovery? I was sold in part. But the irony is that FDR only managed full employment AFTER he virtually nationalized the entire economy to mobilize for war. Of course, Hitler accomplished the same. FDR did so unwillingly, and Truman's claim to greatness stems largely from his transitioning back to private markets.

".... he virtually nationalized the entire economy to mobilize for war."

OMG!!!
Your knowledge of FDR is abysmal!!
No wonder you have no difficulty in worshiping him.

The exact opposite of what you state is the case!


FDR, faced with a war, backed down and went crawling to factory owners....

1. John Maynard Keynes, in a letter published in the NYTimes, December 31, 1933, warned “ even wise and necessary Reform may, in some respects, impede and complicate Recovery. For it will upset the confidence of the business world and weaken their existing motives to action.” Even Keynes saw the danger in treating the nation’s capitalists as an enemy, as “the unscrupulous money changers,” as FDR called them in his first Inaugural.


Again?
"...the nation’s capitalists ... “the unscrupulous money changers,” as FDR called them in his first Inaugural."





2. This was the position he put the nation in:
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".

a. 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.
Folsom and Folsom, "FDR Goes To War"





3 .Careful students of the Roosevelt presidency knew that war must be near because FDR had decided to change the tone of the political debate in Washington. For almost eight years, Wall Street bankers and corporate leaders had been his favorite scapegoats for explaining why the Great Depression was persisting. The premise of his New Deal, after all was that businessmen had failed and that government should regulate, plan and direct much of the American economy to break the hold of the Great Depression.”


4. 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. 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.


a. “…we are calling upon the resources, the efficiency and the ingenuity of the American manufacturers of war material of all kinds -- airplanes and tanks and guns and ships, and all the hundreds of products that go into this material. The Government of the United States itself manufactures few of the implements of war. Private industry will continue to be the source of most of this material, and private industry will have to be speeded up to produce it at the rate and efficiency called for by the needs of the times…. Private industry will have the responsibility of providing the best, speediest and most efficient mass production of which it is capable.”
On National Defense - May 26, 1940



Can you imagine how deeply you'd embarrass yourself if I weren't here to teach you????


Your gratitude is modestly accepted.
(Curtsy)

 

[regent]

what was that econ study about FDR's programs that allowed for market oligarchy or monopoly in exchange for more pay, that at least in theory hurt recovery? I was sold in part. But the irony is that FDR only managed full employment AFTER he virtually nationalized the entire economy to mobilize for war. Of course, Hitler accomplished the same. FDR did so unwillingly, and Truman's claim to greatness stems largely from his transitioning back to private markets.

".... he virtually nationalized the entire economy to mobilize for war."

OMG!!!
Your knowledge of FDR is abysmal!!
No wonder you have no difficulty in worshiping him.

The exact opposite of what you state is the case!


FDR, faced with a war, backed down and went crawling to factory owners....

1. John Maynard Keynes, in a letter published in the NYTimes, December 31, 1933, warned “ even wise and necessary Reform may, in some respects, impede and complicate Recovery. For it will upset the confidence of the business world and weaken their existing motives to action.” Even Keynes saw the danger in treating the nation’s capitalists as an enemy, as “the unscrupulous money changers,” as FDR called them in his first Inaugural.


Again?
"...the nation’s capitalists ... “the unscrupulous money changers,” as FDR called them in his first Inaugural."





2. This was the position he put the nation in:
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".

a. 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.
Folsom and Folsom, "FDR Goes To War"





3 .Careful students of the Roosevelt presidency knew that war must be near because FDR had decided to change the tone of the political debate in Washington. For almost eight years, Wall Street bankers and corporate leaders had been his favorite scapegoats for explaining why the Great Depression was persisting. The premise of his New Deal, after all was that businessmen had failed and that government should regulate, plan and direct much of the American economy to break the hold of the Great Depression.”


4. 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. 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.


a. “…we are calling upon the resources, the efficiency and the ingenuity of the American manufacturers of war material of all kinds -- airplanes and tanks and guns and ships, and all the hundreds of products that go into this material. The Government of the United States itself manufactures few of the implements of war. Private industry will continue to be the source of most of this material, and private industry will have to be speeded up to produce it at the rate and efficiency called for by the needs of the times…. Private industry will have the responsibility of providing the best, speediest and most efficient mass production of which it is capable.”
On National Defense - May 26, 1940



Can you imagine how deeply you'd embarrass yourself if I weren't here to teach you????


Your gratitude is modestly accepted.
(Curtsy)

Until Germany overran France, America's primary problem was the Great Depression. After the fall of France, FDR turned to defense, but easier said than done. The Republican isolationists as usual fought FDR on rearming, and on helping Britain. Our first peace time draft was started and factories turned to making war goods for Britain and America. When the USSR was attacked help was extended to the USSR. The peacetime draft, for one year, was extended by one vote in the House and this only a couple of months before Pearl Harbor.