NationStates Jolt Archive

Ok, FDR's just one guy that people either love or hate. So let's find out why FDR's so hated/popular!

Feel free to state your opinion of him. And your reasons too!

Meh I don't like him because he expanded Gov. Co. powers and created the base in which politicians since then been expanding it.

Meh, he wasn't that bad, but a lot of his decisions were mis-informed.

That and he used the constitution as a washcloth.

he was an American president I guess

I really would rather have Bush. And that's pretty bad.
FDR expanded government powers, created the horrible welfare system we have today, and of course, the relocation camps during WW2 for Japanese-Americans. :mad:

Meh I don't like him because he expanded Gov. Co. powers and created the base in which politicians since then been expanding it.

Thats strange, considering your comments lately, you seem very pro-state.

I really would rather have Bush. And that's pretty bad.
FDR expanded government powers, created the horrible welfare system we have today, and of course, the relocation camps during WW2 for Japanese-Americans. :mad:

This makes no god damn sense. You hate FDR because he expanded the governments powers, and so would rather have George Bush? You hate FDR because he mistreated Japanese Americans, and so would rather have George Bush? You know Bush has not only expanded the Executive Branch powers beyond belief, but he also mistreats certian ethnic groups of Americans?


The welfare comment was just idiotic, so I wont even touch that.

Thats strange, considering your comments lately, you seem very pro-state.

shhh hes in the closet because he is not in power ;)

The welfare comment was just idiotic, so I wont een touch that.

well no doubt looking at America today it really needs more expanding especially from higher taxes :p

I really would rather have Bush. And that's pretty bad.
FDR expanded government powers, created the horrible welfare system we have today, and of course, the relocation camps during WW2 for Japanese-Americans. :mad:

I guess the phrase ¨the lesser of two evils¨ does not applies here.

Although I think FDR was by far, more intelligent and more decent than George W. Bush could ever be. But it´s not like I really care, I´m not American.

A great American leader, but he had plenty of flaws. He was not the best.

Regardless, though, FDR did an awful lot of good stuff, and his attitude was key in countering the danger of the Hooverite aloofness to American democracy. FDR convinced people that he cared, and he played a key role in keeping the extreme right and left weak, during the period where the extremes in the rest of the West gained way too much fucking ground.

But it´s not like I really care, I´m not American.

this is oddly what I also felt like saying, its as though Americans can't make threads that don't involve alienating a good majority of the planet...

I guess the phrase ¨the lesser of two evils¨ does not applies here.

Although I think FDR was by far, more intelligent and more decent than George W. Bush could ever be. But it´s not like I really care, I´m not American.

Ah, there lies why I'd rather have Bush. He's an idiot. And he looks like one. It makes it harder for certain bills to pass.

This makes no god damn sense. You hate FDR because he expanded the governments powers, and so would rather have George Bush? You hate FDR because he mistreated Japanese Americans, and so would rather have George Bush? You know Bush has not only expanded the Executive Branch powers beyond belief, but he also mistreats certian ethnic groups of Americans?


The welfare comment was just idiotic, so I wont even touch that.

See above.

And the welfare comment wasn't idiotic. Just because something conflicts with YOUR political beliefs does not make it idiotic.

this is oddly what I also felt like saying, its as though Americans can't make threads that don't involve alienating a good majority of the planet...

Feel free to make your own UK-specific threads. No one is stopping you at all.

Ah, there lies why I'd rather have Bush. He's an idiot. And he looks like one. It makes it harder for certain bills to pass.

I don´t think Bush is an idiot. Far from it. His idiocy is only a façade, my friend. That man knows what he´s doing. And that´s destroying the US for his own personal benefit and vendettas.

Well, he was a great president, if you ignore him dragging out the recession, the little internment thing, and his corrupt way of packing the courts just to get everything his way. Yeah, a great president.

I don´t think Bush is an idiot. Far from it. His idiocy is only a façade, my friend. That man knows what he´s doing. And that´s destroying the US for his own personal benefit and vendettas.
I sincerly think the man is a complete idiot, though I don't doubt the second part.

this is oddly what I also felt like saying, its as though Americans can't make threads that don't involve alienating a good majority of the planet...

FDR was the key for building the UN. This thread isn't meant to "alienate" anyone. I'm just curious about what peopel think of FDR.

I sincerly think the man is a complete idiot, though I don't doubt the second part.

Hopefully you´re right. Only time will tell, as soon as he steps down and the next president has to deal with the Bush Admin. crap. I do hope you´re right.

Interesting responses people. I didn't really think anyone would vote for Bush over FDR though, but then again I liked the hilarity of the posts. Keep it up guys :)

FDR was among the greatest US presidents, but as mentioned before, he was not without his flaws. One major flaw that I have heard is his reluctence to take action against the concentration camps set up by the Nazis. Some people like to argue that it was a diversion from the main focus of WWII, even though the Nazis were using the death camps to their advantage.

Third worst President.

Third worst President.

Can you please justify this?

He helped America through the Depresion, and gave some great speeches. But he made some poor desisions, particularilly Japanese internment and arguably the atom bomb. Still, he held America together through a very hard time, when many nations fell to poverty and ultimately Dictatorship.

I was split between, "good", and "meh", but by the standards of other Presidents, I probably should have voted good.

He helped America through the Depresion, and gave some great speeches. But he made some poor desisions, particularilly Japanese internment and arguably the atom bomb. Still, he held America together through a very hard time, when many nations fell to poverty and ultimately Dictatorship.

I was split between, "good", and "meh", but by the standards of other Presidents, I probably should have voted good.

Was Truman's order to drop the bomb.

New Deal FTW!

FDR FTW!

Seriously though, he was a great president. One of the best IMO, if not the best. He did what needed to be done during the depression and he did a great job during WWII. Too bad he didn't live to the end of it, though.

One of the greatest leaders in American history. I'm not sure I would say one of the greatest presidents, because he did work outside the Constitution much of the time. But, when he was elected, the U.S. was in a crisis, and then entered an even greater crisis during his administration.

I'm surprised more conservatives don't like FDR, as he pretty much saved capitalism. Yes, he greatly expanded the role the government played in the economy, but that's because the economy was broken. Literally. The Great Depression was the kind of thing Marx had been saying was going to continue until the workers finally revolted. Stalin was thrilled by it, as it seem to justify the Soviet Union's ideology. And in Germany, of course, Hitler used it as an a reason democracy and the concept of individual rights were weak. While the Germans were getting Nazis, we were getting Social Security. I think most would prefer the latter.

And yes, I realize this post fulfills Godwin's Law. But seeing as the historic period we were talking about actually took place during Nazi Germany, I don't think it's too egregious.

Well, let's compare them through their words:


President George W. Bush's Inaugural Address

January 20, 2001

President Clinton, distinguished guests and my fellow citizens, the peaceful transfer of authority is rare in history, yet common in our country. With a simple oath, we affirm old traditions and make new beginnings.

As I begin, I thank President Clinton for his service to our nation.

And I thank Vice President Gore for a contest conducted with spirit and ended with grace.

I am honored and humbled to stand here, where so many of America's leaders have come before me, and so many will follow.

We have a place, all of us, in a long story--a story we continue, but whose end we will not see. It is the story of a new world that became a friend and liberator of the old, a story of a slave-holding society that became a servant of freedom, the story of a power that went into the world to protect but not possess, to defend but not to conquer.

It is the American story--a story of flawed and fallible people, united across the generations by grand and enduring ideals.

The grandest of these ideals is an unfolding American promise that everyone belongs, that everyone deserves a chance, that no insignificant person was ever born.

Seems like he's apologizing for stealing office to me...as for FDR


I AM certain that my fellow Americans expect that on my induction into the Presidency I will address them with a candor and a decision which the present situation of our Nation impels. This is preeminently the time to speak the truth, the whole truth, frankly and boldly. Nor need we shrink from honestly facing conditions in our country today. This great Nation will endure as it has endured, will revive and will prosper. So, first of all, let me assert my firm belief that the only thing we have to fear is fear itself—nameless, unreasoning, unjustified terror which paralyzes needed efforts to convert retreat into advance. In every dark hour of our national life a leadership of frankness and vigor has met with that understanding and support of the people themselves which is essential to victory. I am convinced that you will again give that support to leadership in these critical days.

FDR=great orator and statesman; Bush=Lucky if he can get a catch-phrase right.

Fool me one, shame one you, fool me twice...how'd that go again?

Can you please justify this?

Sure. The reason he's not the worst is because two Presidents surpass him in that regard (Lincoln and Wilson).

You got'se to love the cigarette holder!

Sure. The reason he's not the worst is because two Presidents surpass him in that regard (Lincoln and Wilson).

I don´t think that´s enough proof. What makes Wilson and Lincoln so much worse than FDR? Or what makes FDR so much better than Lincoln or Wilson? We´re talking about men that presided the US in hugely different times.

There are many reasons why FDR was a horrid president, ranging from his blatant class warfare, soviet inspired control of the economy, slaughtering piglets to raise the price of pork while much of the country was starving, total disregard of the constitution, and egomaniacal pursuit of dictatorial power.

Of those, the National Industrial Recovery Act is more than enough to put his as one of the worst presidents in the history of the US. He liked the idea of the command economy so much that he used Soviet inspired policies to strangle small business (he wanted to destroy small business and leave the economy totally dominated by just a handful of humongous firms run by cronies) - fortunately the Supreme Court finally got the balls to go against him (despite the threat that if they ever disagreed with him he would expand the number of justices until he could outvote them) in the Schechter Poultry case, which signaled that there were limits to FDRs dictatorial power and gave business enough hope to start economic recovery.

Despite his current reputation, he did not care about people as much as he did for personal control over everything in the country. Though many people were starving in the streets, he had not the slightest hesitance when he decided to destroy massive amounts of food to raise the price - that way those who were allowed to keep their food could make more money while those less politically connected saw all their livestock destroyed and the hungry pushed even farther from being able to afford to eat.

He gets such good press because he was very leftist, to the point where only the last remnants of the constitution (those few tattered bits left after he shredded it) managed to keep him from communist dictatorship, so those who promote total government control over free markets willingly ignore many of the appalling things he did.

Hopefully you´re right. Only time will tell, as soon as he steps down and the next president has to deal with the Bush Admin. crap. I do hope you´re right.

I tend to think that Bush truly is an idiot, while it's really the puppetmaster Cheney who plots the dark and nefarious schemes.

this is oddly what I also felt like saying, its as though Americans can't make threads that don't involve alienating a good majority of the planet...

That's like saying that it's wrong for anyone to make a thread based specifically on one nation or the affairs of one nation. It's going to happen whether you like it or not. Feel free to create threads on topics that have nothing to do with the USA. No one is stopping ya. ;)

FDR is both good and bad.

While I am not a fan of the new deal, and I do not believe it did anything to end the depression it did give hope and help keep the Us from drifting to the extremes both right and left.
Foreign policy wise he did well during world war II, but poor during the 30's.
what caused the depression was a break down in world trade particularly the Us and Germany. what solved the depression was the restoration of world trade. Which FDR really did not attempt to solve.

Other issues include:
trying to pack the supreme court by doubling the number of justices.
(bush might be bad but he hasn't gone that far).

i'd say his so called socialism was the only thing that saved american capitolism's ass. which doesn't mean he wasn't without warts too.

such as, if intering japanese americans was a reasonable precaution, why weren't german americans interned also?

but i really think that was his one big wart that i know of. otherwise, well he WAS before my time, but he did bring america OUT of the great depression that the 'deregulated' roring 20s had gotten it into.

as for giving war the credit for that, i really don't think so. hitler tried to use starting a war as an economic recouvery package, as well as a bit of personal revenge on the abuses he suffered as a child, not unlike a certain shrubery the simple, and basically both threw any kind of moralty out with the bath water in the proccess. what f.d.r. did was just the opposite.

rescuing europe from hitler's war WAS the right thing to do, and it did get things going, but ecnomically, well i won't go into what i don't have the background to argue effectively, but at any rate, f.d.r. did a lot of things, both right and wrong, but his so called socialism, real policies for real people, places and things, to prevent the great depression's reoccurance, was one of the rightest things to ever have been done in america's history.

and it worked too, until raygun began the proccess of destroying all of that which has been going on more or less ever since, untill today we've seen a repeat of the 20s, and the 30s, only on a g8 international scale, just might be right arround the corner.

he was human and flawed, and first and last a politician, but he did do a couple of things more right then anyone in that office has before or since.

the only more redeaming president we've had, as far as i can tell, was j.f.k. for his support for civil rights and the ending of segrigation.

=^^=
.../\...

i'd say his so called socialism was the only thing that saved american capitolism's ass. which doesn't mean he wasn't without warts too.

such as, if intering japanese americans was a reasonable precaution, why weren't german americans interned also?

The interment of Japaneses Americans while wrong is something I could forgive, as it is better to ask for forgiveness then ask for permission ina wartime situation. Germans and Italian Americans were not interned for two major reasons
1. There were too many of them and this would have effectively shut down the industrial facilities on the East Coast. It is the same reason Japanese Americans on Hawaii were not interned.
2. The vast majority of German and Italian Americans had been in the US for several generations by and large they considered themselves more American then anything else. Where as excluding the Japanese on Hawaii Japanese Americans tended to be 1st and 2 generation.

but i really think that was his one big wart that i know of. otherwise, well he WAS before my time, but he did bring america OUT of the great depression that the 'deregulated' roring 20s had gotten it into.

I would beg to differ
looking at this graph http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:1929_wall_street_crash_graph.svg
you see that by June 1930 the dow jones was reaching levels of early 1929.
what happened was passage of the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act.
this act reduced US imports and exports(as other countries passed similar measures in reprisal) most notable was the reduction of imports from Germany who needed Americans dollars to pay back the massive Us loan know as the Dawes Act (which was a loan of about 30% of all US banking capitol to Germany). causing the banking system to collapse when Germany defaulted on the loan.

as for giving war the credit for that, i really don't think so. hitler tried to use starting a war as an economic recouvery package, as well as a bit of personal revenge on the abuses he suffered as a child, not unlike a certain shrubery the simple, and basically both threw any kind of moralty out with the bath water in the proccess. what f.d.r. did was just the opposite.

rescuing europe from hitler's war WAS the right thing to do, and it did get things going, but ecnomically, well i won't go into what i don't have the background to argue effectively, but at any rate, f.d.r. did a lot of things, both right and wrong, but his so called socialism, real policies for real people, places and things, to prevent the great depression's reoccurance, was one of the rightest things to ever have been done in america's history.

first paragraph i didn't catch what you said exactly but i think i agree.

and it worked too, until raygun began the proccess of destroying all of that which has been going on more or less ever since, untill today we've seen a repeat of the 20s, and the 30s, only on a g8 international scale, just might be right arround the corner.

Reagen didn't undo the new deal he undid LBJ's great society.

he was human and flawed, and first and last a politician, but he did do a couple of things more right then anyone in that office has before or since.

the only more redeaming president we've had, as far as i can tell, was j.f.k. for his support for civil rights and the ending of segrigation.

=^^=
.../\...

I give LBJ and Truman more credit fir ending segregation the JFK but thats just me.

If you're trying to look for a perfect president, give up. There isn't one.

But FDR was the right person at the right time. Not all his economic policies worked, but at least he was always doing something. That is why Hoover lost the election, because the economy was in the tank and the public perceived him as not doing shit about it. FDR on the other hand was constantly doing things, some of which helped, some of which didn't. But he was making the effort, at that was what mattered for the morale of the American people, allowing them to keep some faith in the system.

It always strikes me as ironic and ungrateful the way cappies hate FDR. He's the reason that Capitalism survived the Great Depression, after its heyday in the 20's.

His leadership in the war was overall good, though the internment is a significant blemish on his record.

He was one of our better leaders.

I don´t think that´s enough proof. What makes Wilson and Lincoln so much worse than FDR? Or what makes FDR so much better than Lincoln or Wilson? We´re talking about men that presided the US in hugely different times.
Because he only supports government if it's microscopic?

Ok, FDR's just one guy that people either love or hate. So let's find out why FDR's so hated/popular!

Feel free to state your opinion of him. And your reasons too!

Who? :confused:

I'm surprised more conservatives don't like FDR, as he pretty much saved capitalism.

He's a member of the traditional progressive movement, and he was quoted as saying: "I'm that kind of liberal, because I'm that kind of conservative."

I rather approve of him, even if I question his policies to a degree, because he was precisely that.

Sure. The reason he's not the worst is because two Presidents surpass him in that regard (Lincoln and Wilson).

Oh I can't wait to hear this one.......

I tend to think that Bush truly is an idiot, while it's really the puppetmaster Cheney who plots the dark and nefarious schemes.

I don't know much about the Presidents of the US, that country is as alien to me as the moon. I lived there and disliked it so much as to develop a total aversion to that country. But Bush Jr. is intriguing in a way. He looks like an idiot, but is he really?

As for Cheney, he's like Palpatine in so many ways as strike terror in the eye of the beholder. Perhaps the puppetmaster argument makes sense.

I don't know much about the Presidents of the US, that country is as alien to me as the moon. I lived there and disliked it so much as to develop a total aversion to that country. But Bush Jr. is intriguing in a way. He looks like an idiot, but is he really?

As for Cheney, he's like Palpatine in so many ways as strike terror in the eye of the beholder. Perhaps the puppetmaster argument makes sense.

Where in it did you live?

Ok, FDR's just one guy that people either love or hate. So let's find out why FDR's so hated/popular!

Feel free to state your opinion of him. And your reasons too!

You left out he was a Socialist and that is why I dislike him.

FDR was the key for building the UN.

Another HUGE mistake. :mad: Nothing more need be said.

I disagree with his extended terms, his internment of innocent people in prison camps, and some of his WW2 choices.

All in all, he did do a lot of good though. He evens out for me, so I'd say I'm neutral.

[QUOTE=West Corinthia;13660529 he did a great job during WWII. [/QUOTE]

Only if you consider selling out Eastern Europe to the communists a good deal. :rolleyes:

One of the greatest leaders in American history. I'm not sure I would say one of the greatest presidents, because he did work outside the Constitution much of the time. But, when he was elected, the U.S. was in a crisis, and then entered an even greater crisis during his administration.

But if Bush "works outside the Constitution he is ....not one of the greatest presidents...:rolleyes:

Only if you consider selling out Eastern Europe to the communists a good deal. :rolleyes:

I do.

I do.

You clearly didn't live there, then.

You clearly didn't live there, then.

And you did?

He was good, not the best. He had a lot of bad decisions during his massive tenure but he could unite the people like few others. His persona joins that of Churchill, Hitler, and Stalin at a time when, despite the atrocities of the latter of the two, they, for the time and for their accomplishments [despite how horrific they were] just unfathomable.

And you did?

:rolleyes:

No, but on the rare occasion when I get to meet someone who did, I listen to what they have to say about it (hint: "It sucked!").

Looking at his contemporaries he EASILY takes my preference in his time period. An excellent war time leader, like Churchill. He was certainly the best choice for America during his time period, Nazis + isolationists = not good. Then again, extreme isolationists tend to be bad at any time in the modern era.

I don't think I've liked any of the US presidents...maybe I'm just too picky

He was one of the better presidents. If anything, he not only had a direction that the nation should go, he was capable of TELLING the people why it should go there. Those fireside chats were brilliant, and kept the US together during the dark times of WWII.

It's easy now to look at the whole of the war and see how Germany and Japan were seemingly doomed from the start. When you get to Midway for example, everything in the history books say "Here was the turning point for the Pacific War", but at the time, people had no idea that it was indeed the turning point.

For the most part, he made good choices for the US and kept us together in a crisis. What more do you want out of a leader?

Only if you consider selling out Eastern Europe to the communists a good deal. :rolleyes:
And I'm sure YOU have a much better idea that would have worked too if only you were there, right? :rolleyes:

I think he gets an overly bad rap sometimes for his handling of the great depression. Economic recovery was significant from 1934 onwards, despite unemployment remaining high, probably in no small part because of all the deficit spending he liked so much.

On the other hand he stayed on far too long: he was well past his expiration date by 1944 and frankly couldn't cope anymore. He should also have at least tried to keep Harry Truman informed on what was actually going on, rather than just dying and dumping everything on Truman's lap all at once.

I'm not convinced he really understood foreign policy all that well either.

I'm surprised more conservatives don't like FDR, as he pretty much saved capitalism.

That is debatable.

:rolleyes:

No, but on the rare occasion when I get to meet someone who did, I listen to what they have to say about it (hint: "It sucked!").

I also want to add that I have heard plenty of stories from people that escaped the Eastern block. Life was not rosy under Communist rule and that is putting it mildly.

He should also have at least tried to keep Harry Truman informed on what was actually going on, rather than just dying and dumping everything on Truman's lap all at once.


I don't believe the Vice Presidents role was as involved as it is today. Also considering the circumstances I think Truman did a good job.



I'm not convinced he really understood foreign policy all that well either.


Neither do I with the advances the Soviets made after the war. However Communism was still somewhat new at the time and I don't think enough thought was put into the post war world. Much like post war Iraq.

For the most part, he made good choices for the US and kept us together in a crisis. What more do you want out of a leader?


I think he kept a lid on a possible civil uprising in the 1930's that could have led to a all out civil war.

I don't believe the Vice Presidents role was as involved as it is today. Also considering the circumstances I think Truman did a good job.


Yah, I'll grant you that. But it was pretty obvious that FDR was not going to see his term out and even so he kept Truman completely in the dark about virtually everything. He really should have tried to at least get Truman up to speed with briefings and such. (Or at least the people around FDR should have tried, given that FDR was clearly failing at that point).

And I don't criticize Truman because of this. He did remarkably well considering he was dropped in the deep end. Nevertheless, I still think it hurt the US (and western allies in general) because he wasn't really prepared for Potsdam. (Doubly so because of the Soviet agents that worked for the state department).

He was great, if not the best.

He sorted out the depression pretty effectively (anyone who whines about 1937/1938 is ignoring the fact that a mini-depression happened in the rest of the world at this time as well), got Tennessee sorted out in terms of power, getting farmland back how it should have been and cutting down malaria, and largely sorted out the Hoovervilles, too.

Aye, some of the stuff he did was supposedly "unconstitutional", but he stopped the US from becoming extreme in the same manner as continental Europe in the 1930s, which could so easily have happened with the state the economy was in when he came to power.

Only if you consider selling out Eastern Europe to the communists a good deal. :rolleyes:
What the hell could the US have done?

"Aye, we'll take on the now very good Red Army to try and save some countries which affect us and our economy very minimally, costing hundreds of thousands of US lives"?

Tosser of a human being. Wanted to let the Germans starve to death. If I ever get the chance, I'm going to let Americans starve to death, see how they like it.

What the hell could the US have done?

"Aye, we'll take on the now very good Red Army to try and save some countries which affect us and our economy very minimally, costing hundreds of thousands of US lives"?

Didn't the Allies spend the entirely of WWI and WWII doing the exact same thing?

Didn't the Allies spend the entirely of WWI and WWII doing the exact same thing?
...

Aye, but why would they want another five, maybe ten, years of actual, deadly warfare instead of just having the Cold War making everyone a bit worried about being nuked, but otherwise fine?

...

Aye, but why would they want another five, maybe ten, years of actual, deadly warfare instead of just having the Cold War making everyone a bit worried about being nuked, but otherwise fine?

The ENTIRETY OF THE 20TH CENTURY could have been avoided had the Allies done that.

The ENTIRETY OF THE 20TH CENTURY could have been avoided had the Allies done that.
...

Wut?

WW1 was fought because it was in Britain and France's interest to completely plaster Germany so that its economy remained weak whilst they got increasingly strong (didn't really happen in the end), rather than really being over any dispute in the Balkans.

WW2 was fought because Hitler was completely mental and went after the entire world. We didn't care about Eastern Europe, because it was a waste of time. Most of it was pretty backwards, and the USSR would simply take them over if we started getting uppity with them. Why waste lives and money when you know what the outcome will be?

*edits*

And if you mean "if we'd have taken on the USSR in WW2, things would be different" - not really, the US couldn't ever have moved enough troops over in one go to take the USSR over, and vice versa. Would have been an extremely long and costly tit-for-tat battle with no reason.

...

Wut?

WW1 was fought because it was in Britain and France's interest to completely plaster Germany so that its economy remained weak whilst they got increasingly strong (didn't really happen in the end), rather than really being over any dispute in the Balkans.

WW2 was fought because Hitler was completely mental and went after the entire world. We didn't care about Eastern Europe, because it was a waste of time. Most of it was pretty backwards, and the USSR would simply take them over if we started getting uppity with them. Why waste lives and money when you know what the outcome will be?

*edits*

And if you mean "if we'd have taken on the USSR in WW2, things would be different" - not really, the US couldn't ever have moved enough troops over in one go to take the USSR over, and vice versa. Would have been an extremely long and costly tit-for-tat battle with no reason.

WWI was the UK and France supporting Russia, who went to war to protect Serbia... which affected Russia and their economy very minimally, costing millions of Russian lives.

WWII was almost completely caused by WWI.

Where in it did you live?

East Lansing, MI.

Another HUGE mistake. :mad: Nothing more need be said.

It has been useful in some areas, especially with UNICEF etc. It isn't perfect but no supranational organisation can be, it doesn't have the authority. How was that a huge mistake?

WWI was the UK and France supporting Russia, who went to war to protect Serbia... which affected Russia and their economy very minimally, costing millions of Russian lives.

WWII was almost completely caused by WWI.
...

Aye, the alliances weren't created for the sake of Poor Bloody Serbia / Belgium etc., they were created to protect the powers involved, France, Britain and Russia / Germany, Austria and Italy) prospectively.

It would have ended at Austria fighting the Serbs were it not for the fact that we were up for a fight to assert who was the stronger alliance militarily. The Black Hand, of whom Gavrilo Princip was a member, was supported by and had links with the French and British intelligence services.

But if Bush "works outside the Constitution he is ....not one of the greatest presidents...:rolleyes:

Hmm, that's true. That would explain why I say this:
One of the greatest leaders in American history. I'm not sure I would say one of the greatest presidents, because he did work outside the Constitution much of the time. But, when he was elected, the U.S. was in a crisis, and then entered an even greater crisis during his administration.


The difference between FDR and W is that the former competently expanded his power.

That is debatable.

I'm game: please debate it, with reasons. :)

East Lansing, MI.

I've never been there. Have you been anywhere on the west coast?

I've never been there. Have you been anywhere on the west coast?

San Diego, CA. And LA, CA.

I also want to add that I have heard plenty of stories from people that escaped the Eastern block. Life was not rosy under Communist rule and that is putting it mildly.

Coming from an ultra-left Socialist, teetering on Communism(Not Marxist, different type of communism on my way), I concur. The Soviet Union was by far an ideal world to live under. Hell, it was far from a decent world to live under for most. That said, I consider the USSR not Communist, in the least, as they followed almost none of the tenants of communism, but eh. That's another story for another time.

As for FDR: Great Leader... questionable president. I understand why he did some of the more... unsavory things he did, but that doesn't mean I agree with them, in the least.

I'm game: please debate it, with reasons. :)

The world's economy was Dependant on the Us post WWI because the US held 80% of world gold reserves, and no one really knew how to run economies with out a gold standard.

the stock market crash happened in October 1929 correct?
Most people like to assume this is the cause of the depression.
however by may 1930 the stock market had mostly recovered.
what happened was the passage of the Hawley-Smoot Tariff act.
over night import duties were quadrupled, to which other countries returned the favor. world trade is broken, look at unemployment 1930 it was 7.5% and dropping, 1931 it was 15% or doubled and climbing. by 1932 it was 24% or tripled from 1930.

More over this caused the banking system system to collapse as large sums of money were loaned out to Germany, and the drop in Us food exports causing farmers to default on their loans. this lead the the collapse of the banking system.

the act was a huge failure by Hoover that was continued by Roosevelt. However It was FDR that lead us into isolationism, which is what caused both world wars.

The world's economy was Dependant on the Us post WWI because the US held 80% of world gold reserves, and no one really knew how to run economies with out a gold standard.

the stock market crash happened in October 1929 correct?
Most people like to assume this is the cause of the depression.
however by may 1930 the stock market had mostly recovered.
what happened was the passage of the Hawley-Smoot Tariff act.
over night import duties were quadrupled, to which other countries returned the favor. world trade is broken, look at unemployment 1930 it was 7.5% and dropping, 1931 it was 15% or doubled and climbing. by 1932 it was 24% or tripled from 1930.

More over this caused the banking system system to collapse as large sums of money were loaned out to Germany, and the drop in Us food exports causing farmers to default on their loans. this lead the the collapse of the banking system.

the act was a huge failure by Hoover that was continued by Roosevelt. However It was FDR that lead us into isolationism, which is what caused both world wars.

You, sir have contradicted everything I have learned about the great depression. Care to back it up with hard data?

You, sir have contradicted everything I have learned about the great depression. Care to back it up with hard data?

you got to tell me what you've learned about the great depression first. So i can fix it.

you got to tell me what you've learned about the great depression first. So i can fix it.

You made a point, I challenged it, you have to defend it, that's how a debate works, and I see no defense here.

You made a point, I challenged it, you have to defend it, that's how a debate works, and I see no defense here.

you said this contradicts what I've learned about the great depression.

I do not know what you have learned about the great depression, so you have made a statement rather then a point.

I wish Giuseppe Zangara had had better aim.

Edit: Also, I consider him (FDR) the 2nd worst president ever.

You left out he was a Socialist and that is why I dislike him.

I actually didn't describe him at all in my initial post. And last time I checked, Eugene Debs was the Socialist, not FDR. He may have had some socialistic policies, but when a third of the nation's starving, welfare might not be such a bad idea....

Only if you consider selling out Eastern Europe to the communists a good deal. :rolleyes:

Umm, the Red Army was in Eastern Europe, and as Hitler pointed out, attacking it was not a wise idea.

you said this contradicts what I've learned about the great depression.

I do not know what you have learned about the great depression, so you have made a statement rather then a point.

Not to disagree, but he *did* ask you to back up your statements on the GD. I'm not saying you are wrong, but he is making a valid request in that, and you should be able to back up what you said with information.

Not to disagree, but he *did* ask you to back up your statements on the GD. I'm not saying you are wrong, but he is making a valid request in that, and you should be able to back up what you said with information.

but i need to know where he disagreed with me in order to provide him with the information he wants. Otherwise, it will become my 20 page dissertation on the causes of the great depression.

What good thread involving Americans doesn't involve USSR bashing, despite the latter being completely irrelevant to the thread???

For future reference, we are discussing FDR here, not Stalin, please stay on topic. Making whole posts about how shitty life was in the war-torn USSR, as opposed to life being golden in other war-torn regions, is superbly irrelevant. I'm not defending USSR, I'm just asking you guys to stay on topic. Otherwise, this has been a pretty good discussion, and I gotta say that I'm pleased with the vote. :D

Also, FDR wasn't isolationist; he wanted to unify the World behind the United States, but Congress was against it. It was also the racist Congress that wanted to intern the Japanese and Congress that didn't let Jews enter America, not FDR. FDR's as interventionist as they get, without becoming the World's most hated policeman.

Anyways, now we're saying that the stock market recovered before the Depression hit. I'd like to see economic data in support of this statement:
"the stock market crash happened in October 1929 correct?
Most people like to assume this is the cause of the depression.
however by may 1930 the stock market had mostly recovered."

Most people like to assume this is the cause of the depression.
however by may 1930 the stock market had mostly recovered."
Pay attention to '*'
okay Dow Jones industrial Average.
Oct-1928 $252.16 *
Oct-1929 $273.51 *
Nov-1929 $238.95 *
Dec-1929 $248.48
Jan-1930 $267.14
Feb-1930 $271.11
Mar-1930 $286.1 *
Apr-1930 $279.23 *
May-1930 $275.07 *
Jun-1930 $226.34 *
Jul-1930 $233.99
Aug-1930 $240.42
Sep-1930 $204.9 *
Oct-1930 $183.35 *
Nov-1930 $180.91 *
Dec-1930 $164.58 *


the data here shows by May 1930 the stock market had risen to pre crash levels. So the recession caused by the Stock market crash was pretty much over. What changes in June is the raising of trade tariffs and 4 months later the crash of the banking system as Germany defaults on the Dawes act loan.

*source*
http://www.data360.org/dsg.aspx?Data_Set_Group_Id=359
scroll down past the modern data on the graph.

not to mention the unemployment data i have already provided

FDR was the greatest american president. Without him and Churchill we would have lost WW2.. And what is it with you america and your fear of a large government.?? We have large governments in Europe and especially in Denmark, where I'm from, and it works quite well..

and:

You left out he was a Socialist and that is why I dislike him.

This is just stupid.... Where's the socialst policies he made? providing welfare for the people is NOT socialist.. Social Conservatives and Social Liberals do this too... As I recall he didn't overtax the rich to death to provide for the welfare..

The world's economy was Dependant on the Us post WWI because the US held 80% of world gold reserves, and no one really knew how to run economies with out a gold standard.
Also because you only lost 100,000 men from your workforce, which was a great deal less than the British, Germans, French and especially Russians. That your country was also less affected by the bird flu epidemic of 1918/19 also played a large role in this.
the stock market crash happened in October 1929 correct?
Most people like to assume this is the cause of the depression.
however by may 1930 the stock market had mostly recovered.
Simply untrue, it was still about 30% below the peak in 1929.
what happened was the passage of the Hawley-Smoot Tariff act.
over night import duties were quadrupled, to which other countries returned the favor. world trade is broken, look at unemployment 1930 it was 7.5% and dropping, 1931 it was 15% or doubled and climbing. by 1932 it was 24% or tripled from 1930.
Quite. Nice one.
More over this caused the banking system system to collapse as large sums of money were loaned out to Germany, and the drop in Us food exports causing farmers to default on their loans. this lead the the collapse of the banking system.
The US was recalling its loans to Germany from 1930 onwards, not giving more out. The banks collapsed because their assets had lost a lot of their value as so many people defaulted that real estate prices came down, and there was a run on the banks when panic started to set in about how much shares were really worth.
the act was a huge failure by Hoover that was continued by Roosevelt. However It was FDR that lead us into isolationism, which is what caused both world wars.
Isolationism didn't cause both world wars. At all. Quite the opposite. Isolationism may have been the reason you guys were two years late both times, but it wasn't the root cause by any means.

such as, if intering japanese americans was a reasonable precaution, why weren't german americans interned also?





German-Americans were interned. The sheer amount of them made it impractical to intern all of them, so scare tactics were employed by interning a few and so trying to keep the majority under tabs.

Under the authority of the Alien Enemies Act of 1798, over 11,000 Germans and German Americans were selectively detained and interned at the start of World War II. In addition, over 4,500 ethnic Germans were brought to the U.S. from Latin America and detained.


As well as the Texan-German culture being forever destroyed due to the forcible relocation and re-distribution of the German-Americans in the area to water down areas with high German concentrations.

People of German origin were not allowed to hold assemblies and all German-culture clubs were closed. Most schools eradicated their German classes. There was a forced assimilation and toleration of abuse against German-Americans who refused to assimilate and continued to speak their original tongue. German culture in the US never recovered from this, with most German-Americans today no longer being able to speak their old language or know too much about their culture as a result.

So what the fuck are you on about with German-Americans not being interned?

Also because you only lost 100,000 men from your workforce, which was a great deal less than the British, Germans, French and especially Russians. That your country was also less affected by the bird flu epidemic of 1918/19 also played a large role in this.

I find the gold a more important issue since figuring out a system by which the gold reserves could be redistributed to former combative nations was not done by the US which was further compounded by the US only accepting gold backed currency (at this time only the dollar and the Yen remained as major gold backed currencies).
others factors were present, but looking at post world war II the majority of them were faced and over came leading to a high European growth.



Simply untrue, it was still about 30% below the peak in 1929.

it was not at Peak but it was at average of 1928 and 1929 levels.
And I have provided Data that shows this is correct.
More over only those investing in the last 6 weeks before peak would have lost money.

Quite. Nice one.

The US was recalling its loans to Germany from 1930 onwards, not giving more out. The banks collapsed because their assets had lost a lot of their value as so many people defaulted that real estate prices came down, and there was a run on the banks when panic started to set in about how much shares were really worth.

The loans were upwards of 50 year terms.
the vast majority of these loans that had been give out were never recouped
and accounted for nearly 1/3 of US banking capital, when Germany began defaulting on them.

Isolationism didn't cause both world wars. At all. Quite the opposite. Isolationism may have been the reason you guys were two years late both times, but it wasn't the root cause by any means.

again I have to beg to differ. The collapse of world trade ended the good times Germany had in the mid 20's(Germany's economy was based off of selling stuff to the US). Hitler during the good times had tried to come to power but failed (hard to be a revolutionary when everyone is happy).

As the great Depression hit US, Germany was hit harder then most of europe
because their economy was more closely tied with the US. The economic conditions were the reason Hitler was able to come to power. the cause of the economic conditions was US economic Isolationism. More over Hitler adopted a strategy of autarky despite Post WWI Germany lacking the resources to pursue such a path over the long term which means the only option to avoid trade and pursue autarky was expansion to acquire resources.
Also lacking from 1930 onward is US involvement in any talks with Germany, which were needed in the past to stop the French from doing things like occupying Ruhr.

Japan is also a case of US isolationism cause the goverment to shift toward more expansive forces. If Germany had few resources Japan had almost none.
The Japanese economy during the 20's was strong and this is an era referred to as the taisho democracy. Japan's economy depended on importing raw material manufacturing goods then selling them(as it did in 60's and 70's).
the break down of world trade left Japan unable to acquire resources and with out a market for finished goods. Furthermore The break down of the Chinese goverment ,and lack of effort to prop it up, by the US and west(US japan and europe had agreed to work together to ensure china is independent and stable) left japan with a renewed fear of western expansion into China.

With the lack of trade Japan felt it had little resource but to expand.

I find the gold a more important issue since figuring out a system by which the gold reserves could be redistributed to former combative nations was not done by the US which was further compounded by the US only accepting gold backed currency (at this time only the dollar and the Yen remained as major gold backed currencies).
others factors were present, but looking at post world war II the majority of them were faced and over came leading to a high European growth.


Hitler during the good times had tried to come to power but failed (hard to be a revolutionary when everyone is happy).

As the great Depression hit US, Germany was hit harder then most of europe
because their economy was more closely tied with the US. The economic conditions were the reason Hitler was able to come to power. the cause of the economic conditions was US economic Isolationism. More over Hitler adopted a strategy of autarky despite Post WWI Germany lacking the resources to pursue such a path over the long term which means the only option to avoid trade and pursue autarky was expansion to acquire resources.
Also lacking from 1930 onward is US involvement in any talks with Germany, which were needed in the past to stop the French from doing things like occupying Ruhr.

Japan is also a case of US isolationism cause the goverment to shift toward more expansive forces. If Germany had few resources Japan had almost none.
The Japanese economy during the 20's was strong and this is an era referred to as the taisho democracy. Japan's economy depended on importing raw material manufacturing goods then selling them(as it did in 60's and 70's).
the break down of world trade left Japan unable to acquire resources and with out a market for finished goods. Furthermore The break down of the Chinese goverment ,and lack of effort to prop it up, by the US and west(US japan and europe had agreed to work together to ensure china is independent and stable) left japan with a renewed fear of western expansion into China.

With the lack of trade Japan felt it had little resource but to expand.

Gold isn't more important, because during WWI, most of the people that were killed, well above 90%, could have joined the workforce. By the end of WWI, there was less workforce and more people needing care, such as the war wounded. Workforce works, it produces money, which can then be exchanged for gold.


There's also that poorly written thingy called the Versailles Treaty, which was the poorest written treaty I have ever seen. You punish the losers, sure, but you don't try to enslave them without any oversight; geez, if I leave my slaves on my plantation and let them run the place, think they might revolt? If Germany's defeaulting on its loans, chances are that Germany can't pay the loans owned via the Versailles Treaty either. That's when you refinance, not impose more penalties on the nation that can't pay. Hitler became popular in politics on his ability to repudiate the Versailles Treay; here Britain and France should have either punished Germany or forgive Germany - instead they did absolutely nothing, letting Hitler rise to power.

It wasn't just about Germany's trade being tied to that of the US, but about lack of a portion of a badly needed workforce and the poorly written Versailles Treaty. Luckily FDR was a much better negotiator then Wilson, he got the message of the UN across quite nicely: "Hey there USSR and UK, you're either in the UN, or you can suck it." Well he said it much better, but that was the essence of his message at Yalta. Unlike Wilson, who should've done the same thing with his 14 points, but for some reason or another, didn't. He tried, well trying doesn't count in International Politics.

Gold isn't more important, because during WWI, most of the people that were killed, well above 90%, could have joined the workforce. By the end of WWI, there was less workforce and more people needing care, such as the war wounded. Workforce works, it produces money, which can then be exchanged for gold.

Gold was needed in the early 20th century, because if your currency was not backed by gold no one took it outside your country, it was not good for international debts, and it would be useless in getting raw materials for your factories.
not to mention Europe had the same man power shortage problem after WWII however europe had 30 years of the fastest growth in history. the differences was there was an equivalent of the gold standard.


There's also that poorly written thingy called the Versailles Treaty, which was the poorest written treaty I have ever seen. You punish the losers, sure, but you don't try to enslave them without any oversight; geez, if I leave my slaves on my plantation and let them run the place, think they might revolt? If Germany's defeaulting on its loans, chances are that Germany can't pay the loans owned via the Versailles Treaty either. That's when you refinance, not impose more penalties on the nation that can't pay. Hitler became popular in politics on his ability to repudiate the Versailles Treay; here Britain and France should have either punished Germany or forgive Germany - instead they did absolutely nothing, letting Hitler rise to power.

Versailles had more then punish Germany in mind. the Idea was that a large well armed Poland was needed to protect Germany from Leninist Russia, since Germany had been worn down from World War I. And in fact Poland did just that in 1920, I consider the battle of Warsaw perhaps the most influential battle of the 20th century.

It wasn't just about Germany's trade being tied to that of the US, but about lack of a portion of a badly needed workforce and the poorly written Versailles Treaty. Luckily FDR was a much better negotiator then Wilson, he got the message of the UN across quite nicely: "Hey there USSR and UK, you're either in the UN, or you can suck it." Well he said it much better, but that was the essence of his message at Yalta. Unlike Wilson, who should've done the same thing with his 14 points, but for some reason or another, didn't. He tried, well trying doesn't count in International Politics.

It was the US that was not in the league of nations. The 14 points were nice but they did not fit with reality at the time. which is why the European Diplomats in putting a more realistic view on things.
10 years past the end of the great war teenagers would have risen to become adults in the work force, the work force issue was not and issue by 1930. what was the issue was the only way to get gold back currency was trade with the US. No trade with the US then there was no international trade. And it doesn't matter what size of the work force you have if I put a insanely high tariff barrier you will never be able to make things cheap enough that an American will pay for money for it.