As President, FDR oversaw the most extensive bombing of civilian

[MineralMan]

targets ever. WWII included strategic bombing not only of industrial and military targets but also of the major cities of Germany and Japan. The death toll was enormous. He died in April of 1945, but also oversaw and ordered the development of the nuclear weapons that were used in Japan to end the war in the Pacific. Those bombings were planned before his death, which came less than four months before the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings. Planning was already in place for those events.

While Harry Truman gave the actual orders for those nuclear weapons to be used, it is certain that FDR would have given the same orders. He believed in strategic bombing of civilian populations as a means of creating panic and destroying civilian morale and thus ending support for the enemy's war efforts.

In terms of economics, FDR did some amazing, progressive things, but when it came to making war, he was not any sort of pacifist. Since there are so few people left who were adults during FDR's presidency, our memories of that time only come from contemporary writings. It doesn't take much research to confirm what I have written above. It's important to keep history in some sort of accurate perspective.

I don't remember FDR. I was born less than 10 days before the Hiroshima bomb was dropped. My parent, however, were around then, and their memories are intact and strong. My father was a B-17 bomber pilot in WWII, and participated in some of those bombings in Germany. The reality is that we did those things, and that FDR was President when we did.

[Cali_Democrat]

1. Also, the internment of Japanese-Americans was awful and incredibly racist

Americans of German and Italian decent weren't detained in nearly the same numbers.

[MineralMan]

5. Indeed it was. But, I was only discussing the bombing

of civilian targets. I have known several people who were interned in those camps. I'm from California.

People often lionize FDR as what a President should be, while at the same time forgetting some of the things that happened on his watch. In economic policies, FDR did much that was admirable. In other areas, he acted as a wartime President is sometimes required to act. War sucks. It often requires doing things that also suck.

[Cali_Democrat]

10. Another interesting fact I found out recently

The carpet bombing of Tokyo killed more civilians than the nuclear attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

I guess dropping incendiary bombs from B-29 bombers just won't get as much notoriety.

[MineralMan]

16. That is correct. However, it wasn't apparently enough to cause

Japan to surrender. When one bomber destroyed an entire city with one bomb, the Japanese government saw that the war was lost. They had no option but to surrender. And so they did.

Had the war in Europe not ended, I have no doubt that nuclear weapons would have been used in that theater as well. It was certainly contemplated. The bombing of Dresden is another example of the strategy of bombing to create massive civilian casualties. At that point in WWII, patience was at an end, and any means were being used to bring it to an end. FDR was instrumental in making the decisions that led to this type of strategic bombing. It was seen as a necessary step that had to be taken.

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

93. I think it was fire bombing actually

Tokyo and Dresden.

[leftstreet]

2. As War, II sucked

What's with the periodic and sporadic FDR bashing?

Has he come back from the dead and thrown his hat in the primary against Hillary?

[geek tragedy]

6. No, but Zombie FDR gets held up as some kind of superhero who would have

solved all the problems we're facing today just by being FDR.

Ironically, a lot of the people who say this think Obama is the worst thing ever on civil liberties and because of drones.

[leftstreet]

12. He was an accidental 'hero' to the working classes

But a true hero to the ruling class

His promotion of social programs helped push back growing left resistance, labor organizing, the Communist party, etc

That people benefited from these programs was NOT the goal

FDR was not, and is not, the issue
It's about policies

[geek tragedy]

15. every president is a product of his political environment.

people tend to focus too much on personalities, not enough on the larger world

[indepat]

52. And FDR probably understood the politics of the day (the people) better that any president has,

fully realizing that many things that should be done were not politically feasible.

[geek tragedy]

54. Politically, FDR had it easier than any other president, given

his huge majorities. He had a blank check.

Policy-wise, he had it the most difficult.

[treestar]

90. Amen. Plus the depression made people desperate enough

To allow him to try new things. That was a different climate entirely.

[geek tragedy]

91. He had fierce pressure from the left, moreso than from the right.

Imagine if that were happening today.

[TBF]

63. ^^ this ^^ - nt

[treestar]

89. Exactly.

Nailed it. Zombie FDR, I like it.

Also there is Zombie LBJ who would have slapped a public option out of those Republicans.

[Zorra]

8. The right wing has a recently stepped up propaganda program going on to discredit the New Deal and

attempt to create a social, economic, and political climate more favorable to austerity and privatization of government.

It is insidious, and direct, as well as indirect.

[Rex]

17. That is IT right there in a nutshell Zorra.

Said it better then I ever could!

[leftstreet]

21. +1

[woo me with science]

32. ^^^^^^^^This is the correct answer.^^^^^^^^

Trashing the transparent propaganda thread.

[xchrom]

56. that is the correct call out to this thread. nt

[WorseBeforeBetter]

61. Yep. More manipulative bullshit...

and I'm happy to see the vast majority of DUers reject it.

[DLevine]

86. Agreed. nt

[Doctor_J]

100. and lo and behold, the Fan Club brings it to DU

truly amazing how this works.

[MineralMan]

9. FDR is held up by some as a paragon of progressivism.

Comparisons are made, but only to the extent that they are convenient. Since most people's knowledge of history is limited, it's important to look at past Presidents clearly and with their entire record being considered.

[leftstreet]

14. The policies, not the person n/t

[MineralMan]

18. Yes, and the policies included inflicting mass civilian

casualties, too. Those were policies as well. FDR is frequently lionized here on DU, but without mentioning other policies he carried out beyond economic policies.

[leftstreet]

20. I've never seen his war policies 'lionized' here

I've never once seen a discussion on DU about Bush, War, Cheney, PNAC, Clinton, Iraq, Obama, Drones...where anyone has pointed to FDR's war policies and said 'What Would FDR Do?'

FDR's administration is famous here for its social policies

[Rex]

22. Seems to drive people up the wall.

That FDR does.

[MineralMan]

23. The rest of that adminstration's actions are simply not mentioned.

If social policies include things like racial equality and the rights of all citizens, we could call those policies under FDR into question, as well. Selective history is no history at all. It is merely focusing on a single aspect of history, rather than on the entire history.

When it comes to past President, you present the entire history or you don't present an accurate picture.

[karynnj]

11. Has any war NOT sucked?

In fact, it was after WWII that the UN started with the main goal of stopping wars. Though there have been many wars, there has been a major drop in the numbers killed in wars starting after WW!!.

[Art_from_Ark]

74. And FDR helped lay the groundwork for the UN

[GreenStormCloud]

87. I have that stamp. Canceled, of course. N/T

[bluestate10]

102. War is war. How war is defined is always a function of the time that it is

fought in. Wars by Drone is war that is designed to remove an adversary. Bombing in WWII was designed to kill adversaries, same as Drone wars.

[el_bryanto]

3. War is a crime. That's the nature of War. The act of War is a Crime

But what other options did FDR have?

What should he have done?

Bryant

[MineralMan]

7. I would say he had no other options, actually.

I'm not criticizing FDR's actions during the war. I'm pointing them out as things that were done that we often deplore when someone else does them. We must not forget the totality of his Presidency when comparing him to any other President.

[el_bryanto]

13. I think when people compare presidents they are comparing character rather than programs

The programs that FDR proposed and didn't propose, the political realities he faced, aren't the same as the ones Obama faced.

Bryant

[MineralMan]

19. Character. Yes. As I said, FDR's economic policies were strongly

progressive. In other areas, his character led to different actions, some of which we might not agree with. A Presidency is more than a single aspect of what a President does. Looking back, it's important to look at the entire history of a Presidency, rather than just the parts of it that reinforce our preconceptions.

Thus, my OP.

[el_bryanto]

29. Why is it important? What is the value of it?

I mean if I want to point to some thing I think that FDR was good at, say his eagerness to experiment, I also need to point out all the bad things he did as well?

Bryant

[Rex]

35. "Fair and Balanced?"

You know...like Foxnews?

[frylock]

71. for the win

[Rex]

4. 'when it came to making war, he was not any sort of pacifist.'

[MineralMan]

24. You find that amusing?

Odd, I think.

[Rex]

33. Looks like fluff I would see on a 10th grade history test.

When they needed to pad out an essay. So no you obviously would not get it.

[SammyWinstonJack]

64. That's gonna leave a mark!

[Poddy Fries]

25. Had he implented pacificist policies following Dec. 7th, 1941, he would have been impeached.

And rightly so.

[MineralMan]

27. I doubt the idea of not pursuing war ever entered his mind, frankly.

There was no possible path to avoiding either part of WWII. Any President would have done the same thing FDR did. It's possible that WWII might have been prevented, but that would have required some sort of prescient vision back in the 1930s and even earlier than that, actually.

WWII, in then end, was a result of post WWI policies with regard to Germany. We made some serious mistakes at that time.

[Rex]

39. The sentence itself is pure fluff.

NM. I bet teachers would get it.

[gopiscrap]

50. welcome to DU

[Bluenorthwest]

26. Is FDR saying he's going to run against Hillary?

I've never heard anyone every claim FDR was a pacifist. I think of him as the President that won WW2 for the most part. Do you think of Lincoln as the President who slaughtered tens of thousands of Americans here at home rather than as preserver of the Union and great emancipator?
The Centrist reading on history is an odd one, I'll give you that. 'He was too harsh on Hitler' might not play all that well in Peoria.

[MineralMan]

30. I don't believe that would be possible, actually.

War leads to horrible things. Even small wars. I'd rather they didn't occur, frankly. Sadly, they seem to keep right on occurring, and our Presidents end up making decisions they'd rather not make, I'm sure. Sucks.

I didn't mention Hillary Clinton at all. She's not the President, although there's a fair chance she will be in a few years. Then, she'll have to make those troublesome decisions all Presidents end up having to make. Sucks.

[RobertEarl]

40. Obama walked back from bombing Syria

We held his feet to the fire. Too bad we couldn't stop Bush, eh?

[MineralMan]

42. Yes, he did. And that was an excellent decision on his part.

No question about it. I believe we should not be involved directly with any Middle Eastern conflicts. I have believed that for decades.

We do not understand the region well enough to take sides there.

[RobertEarl]

47. Why did we not stop Bush?

FDR is ancient. Bush, tho, is still around. Him and Cheney.

Was America just a bunch of bloodthirsty hacks in 2000 that were glad to go to war, again, like they were in the 40's and 60's?

If Obama did not bomb Syria, ala, FDR, is Obama a pacifist?

[MineralMan]

49. No, Obama is not a Pacifist.

That's a philosophy that probably is incompatible with being President.

As for why we didn't stop Bush, many tried, including myself. It did not work, and President Obama's still dealing with his wars.

Would that it were not so.

[Bluenorthwest]

72. The bashing of FDR seems to be a thing Centrists do when prepping for a big election.

Republicans hate FDR like they love Ronald Reagan. My parents loved Franklin and Eleanor. So the entire spectrum of 'let's bash Roosevelt' speech is something I am not overly fond of. I was raised to see that sort of thing about the same as any other John Birch Society sort of stuff. These days it is Rush Limbaugh who really does the Franklin bashing, but when I was a kid it was Birchers, who flourished in the California sunshine. Whenever Franklin is bashed, it's time to rally around Social Security and other social programs, because the knives are out again for the New Deal, that's what my Dad would say.
And my Dad fought in the war as well. As did all of my uncles, all Roosevelt loving Democrats.

[hrmjustin]

28. War is evil whether it is justified or not.

[MineralMan]

31. I'd certainly agree with you there.

If we figure out a way to prevent them from happening, I'd be very happy, indeed.

[Fumesucker]

34. FDR had a Congressional Declaration of War

WWII was a galvanic national effort, among other things no civilian vehicles were manufactured during the WWII years, we had rationing of everything from food to tires, there were scrap metal drives for the war effort and victory gardens for the same reason.

The USA was also facing highly competent and technologically advanced fighting forces of some of the most powerful nations on the planet in WWII.

To compare WWII to today's desultory massacre of twelfth century goatherds by flying robots is to compare watermelons to cranberries.

You don't win wars without massive numbers of boots on the ground, that's what Eric Shinseki told Congress that got him canned by Rumsfeld.

[Rex]

38. No wait...I thought FDR declared war and forced us into WWII.

With an evil cackle! What is this Congressional Declaration of War you speak of?

[Fumesucker]

43. Ancient history, as dead and gone as Carthage

[Rex]

45. Ah the days of Antiquities.

When Rome was Rome!

[GreenStormCloud]

92. Those are Greecian soldiers. Hopolites.

Last edited Mon Nov 4, 2013, 08:39 PM - Edit history (1)

This guy is a Roman Legionaire. They were the heavy infantry. Notice the difference in the shield. They are made to interlock with the legionaire to his left and right, thereby increasing the strength of the line.

[Rex]

97. Actually is it a cartoon of Roman soldiers.

Did you really think they were all the same? Not that I expect you to know all the details, but Hoplites used spears.


This is called a Phalanx, really brilliant maneuver by the Greeks.

[GreenStormCloud]

103. Both Romans and Greeks used spears.

The primary difference in appearance is the shape of the shield. The Greek hoplites used the round shield called a hoplon, from which their name derives.

The Roman legionaires used a curved rectangular shield called a scutum. It was made to be able to be quickly hooked to the scutum of the legionaire on each side, making the line more difficult to break. In addition to the thrusting spear, hasta, each legionaire carried the short sword, gladius.

Your guys all have beards. That was Greeks. Romans shaved.

All of your guys have plumed helmets - Grecian. Among the Romans plumed helmets were for the higher ranks, the individual legionaire wore cheaper helmets like the one in the picture I posted.

Otherwise, the soldiers looked very similar. Your cartoon soldiers are Greeks.

[Rex]

106. No it is Roman, notice the sword, it is not a glade like the Greeks use.

Sorry but you are wrong.

EDIT - Greek used different looking swords IOW. Fatter in the middle toward the end.


If we are going on shield size and sword type, it is easy to say it is a gladiator.

[GreenStormCloud]

107. The cartoon sword is too long to be a gladius.

Round shield, everybody has a plumed helmet, everybody has a beard, longer sword - they are greeks.

Bedtime. Have to get up at 4:30 AM. Will be gone for a couple of days.

[Rex]

109. No sorry but they are not Hopilites or Greeks.

They would be carrying spears, the helmet is open like a Roman helmet (the Greeks had closed in helmets) and the swords look longer because they are jumping up and down. Plumed helmets were worn by a lot of armies, sorry. The shields are obviously way too small to be Hopilites. Romans used round shields, to think they only used one type of shield is a silly as thinking none of them had facial hair.

You are simply wrong and need to take it up with the person that made the gif.

Have a great day!


Hey look it is Marcus Aurelius with a beard!



Hadrian had a beard too? No way...

[jwirr]

36. I think I am coming from the same place as you since we are about the same age. My parents, who

were of German ancestry loved him because he saved them economically and as to the war they knew he did what he had to do. We knew about the atrocities with the Jews and others that were happening and knew it could not continue. I realize he made some mistakes or at least what we see as mistakes today but back then it is hard to see what else he could have done. His picture has a place of honor above my computer and it will stay there. Robert Kennedy hangs beside him. If Obama turns out as we expected after his terms are done I will add his photo. The other two are signed. I would love to get one signed by this President. I still have hope for him because I remember hearing how hard it was for FDR to get many of his programs through.

[RobertEarl]

37. No one becomes president who...

One has to be in the Big Club to become president.

Back in the day of FDR, the Big Club had ginned up the war by financial moves meant to enrage Japan and Germany. They were very successful= WW2.

FDR was in that Big Club. What he did manage to do was turn the tables on them and while giving them their wars, he also established worker's rights and pushed thru the New Deal; which the Club hated.

LBJ did pretty much the same with Vietnam and the War on Poverty and Medicare.

Obama is walking a fine line with his give and take. Let us pray he doesn't get pushed over the edge. His backtrack from bombing Syria is evidence he can't be pushed like FDR and LBJ were.

[datasuspect]

41. tell it to the Marines

[MineralMan]

44. Have you seen the movie?

I did, years ago, in a film class. Smedley Butler consulted on that film.

An interesting reference...

[datasuspect]

53. i read about it

in a book.

[MineralMan]

57. It is available on DVD.

[Douglas Carpenter]

46. for an optimistic take on the world: Peace Is Increasing / Prof. Joshua S. Goldstein

"We are winning the war on war."

[Dpm12]

48. Yes the bombings were awful, as was the Japanese internment

Last edited Mon May 1, 2017, 07:28 PM - Edit history (1)

but he did so many great things that you can't just pick out those two flaws. You have to remember, the Japanese internment was not HIS idea (his Secretary of War came up with that) he just signed the internment. And honestly, I feel the atomic bombs being dropped on Japan was justified. Yes Fat Man and Little Boy killed some people, but they saved more people then they killed. Could you imagine the number of civilian deaths if American Forces in large numbers had descended upon Hiroshima and Nagasaki for a full-scale invasion, like what was planned? We would have had hundreds of thousands of dead Japanese civilians and more dead American soldiers.

[MineralMan]

51. I didn't just pick out those. In fact, I referred to his economic

achievements in the original post.

As for the decision to use nuclear weapons, it was no doubt a necessary decision. Fortunately, it hasn't happened again, and with luck and diplomacy will not happen again.

As for the internment of Japanese Americans, Presidents sign things that they agree with, for the most part. It was a popular decision at the time, actually. Not a good decision, though, in my opinion.

He also backed off on racial equality issues, when prodded by others. He did what was expedient. Most Presidents make decisions based on expediency. Sadly, it's part of the job at times.

[Dpm12]

55. Oh, I know he signed the internment into law because he agreed with it

I was just saying that it wasn't his idea.

[MrTriumph]

58. Accurate perspective: FDR was a great president, maybe the best.

x

[MineralMan]

59. Not if you were a citizen of

Japanese heritage or a black person in the military, so much. He was excellent in his economic and labor positions, though.

[trumad]

60. He won the fucking war of wars....

Jesus H. Christ on a Trailer hitch.

[MineralMan]

65. Nice, trumad...

What does Jesus have to do with any of this?

[trumad]

66. Oh fuck Zombie Jesus....

FDR diss on DU...Par for the course.

[MineralMan]

68. Always a surprise...

[trumad]

69. Yeah well there's a couch over there if you need it.

[kratos00]

105. Your utter and complete lack of context regarding

this era is appalling. The Japanese internment was a black mark on our history and was completely unjustified but it was undertaken due to widespread fear after Pearl Harbor. Contrast this with the human rights abuses Japan commited in China and what the Germans did in Europe and we aren't even in the same ballpark. You are looking at past events through the prism of the present and it only results in confusing and misinforming those who don't have a good grasp of history.

[Nye Bevan]

62. It's so easy to sit back in our armchairs in 2013 ruminating

about how we would have handled Hitler, Mussolini and Hirohito.

The world was going to hell, and while FDR may not have been perfect, he saved it.

[trumad]

67. Not really hard for people who want to slyly diss one of our great Democratic Presidents.

[datasuspect]

75. it's not that sly

that would assume the OP is clever in some way instead of transparent as all fuck.

[Ichingcarpenter]

80. Thanks Hitler and Tojo

for ruining FDR's legacy and his immoral bombing of civilians.......after your

rape of Nanking,Manchuria Poland,Russia, the jews, the gypsies, the homosexuals the blitz, Manila, the Ukraine, Bataan death march, the camps, Pearl Harbor.........and on and on and on.

I blame Canada...oh and

FDR..... what an OP joke.

[cali]

70. have you ever even read a bio of FDR? Somehow it doesn't seem like it.

[MineralMan]

96. Of course I have.

A couple I've read fairly recently are Jean Smith's FDR and Jon Meacham's Franklin & Winston. In earlier years, I've read several others. I'm a big reader of Presidential biographies. I find them fascinating.

[MicaelS]

73. The mass bombings of civilians in WWII...

Was a direct outgrowth of WWI, and the theories of Airpower promulgated at the time by Giulio Douhet and Billy Mitchell.

An entire generation of men had been slaughtered on the battlefields of WWI. Advocates of Airpower believed that another such war could be quickly stopped through the use of Airpower. By mass bombing civilian populations, crushing their morale, and thus forcing them to force their government to sue for peace.

FDR did what he had to do during one of the darkest periods in human history. He made mistakes, two of them the internment of Japanese civilians, and unwillingness to bomb the Nazi Death Camps. But I doubt few men could have done what he did the time he was President. He was one of the Great Men of Hiostry.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giulio_Douhet

The chief strategy laid out in his writings, the Douhet model, is pivotal in debates regarding the use of air power and bombing campaigns. The Douhet model rests on the belief that in a conflict, the infliction of high costs from aerial bombing can shatter civilian morale. This would unravel the social basis of resistance, and pressure citizens into asking their governments to surrender. The logic of this model is that exposing large portions of civilian populations to the terror of destruction or the shortage of consumer goods would damage civilian morale into submission. By smothering the enemy's civilian centers with bombs, Douhet argued the war would become so terrible that the common people would rise against their government, overthrow it with revolution, then sue for peace.

The entire population was in the front line of an air war and they could be terrorized with urban bombing. In his book The War of 19-- he described a fictional war between Germany and a Franco-Belgian alliance in which the Germans launched massive terror bombing raids on the populace, reducing their cities to ashes before their armies could mobilize. Because bombing would be so terrible, Douhet believed that wars would be short. As soon as one side lost command of the air it would capitulate rather than face the terrors of air attack. In other words, the enemy air force was the primary target. A decisive victory here would hasten the end of the war.

However, subsequent conflicts would largely discredit Douhet's theory. Air Marshal Arthur "Bomber" Harris set out in 1942 to prove Douhet's theories valid during World War II. Through four years under his command, RAF Bomber Command attempted to destroy the main German cities. By 1944–1945, in partial concert with the USAAF, they had largely achieved this aim; but no revolution toppled the Third Reich. The heavy bombers involved in the Combined Bomber Offensive did not win the war alone, as Harris had argued they would. Douhet's theories about forcing the population to starting a revolution, when subjected to practical application, were shown to be ineffective. In fact, there is considerable evidence to show the bombings did nothing but antagonize the German people, galvanizing them to work harder for their country, and the final defeat of Germany was not achieved until virtually the entire country had been occupied by Allied land forces.

[trumad]

79. In 1940 and 41

Germany bombed the shit out of the English.

Good post BTW.

[MannyGoldstein]

76. More than one million people were killed each month

The vast majority of which were civilians.

While I'm uncomfortable with civilian targets, the Allies felt that there was no better alternative. They needed to win. And they needed to do it quickly.

Who am I to judge?

With so many dying so quickly from the pure evil of the Axis powers, speeding the war's end was very important. Those civilian deaths caused by the US may have saved many, many more civilians in other places.

[MineralMan]

77. Yes, many things are done in wartime that cause harm to innocent

civilians. It's the nature of warfare. Whether that's for good or evil depends on one's opinion of the war and which side is doing them. Again, that has always been the case.

My father and I have discussed that a number of times. He still can't clearly say whether the bombs he rained down on Germany were something moral or immoral. There is no single answer. I'm very fortunate not to have ever been in such a situation, and am grateful for that.

[MannyGoldstein]

85. Your choice of subject line is interesting:

"As President, FDR oversaw the most extensive bombing of civilian targets ever"

Rather than, say:

"As President, FDR probably saved more civilians in war than any other leader in history"

Why pick the former rather than, say, the latter? What's the message that you're trying to send?

The total number of German and Japanese civilians killed was somewhere around 2-3 million, less than 10% of total civilian deaths in that war that was caused by their country. I think the Allies did an incredible job of bringing that war to a fast end once the US was engaged, which doubtless saved many, many millions of civilian lives.

[MineralMan]

88. I believe that FDR was one of the best Presidents the US

has had. His presidency, still, had issues that are of note that are also problems. Were the civilian bombing raids necessary? I do not know the answer to that question. They happened, nevertheless. That is a fact. The internment of Japanese Americans is also a fact. If such a thing happened today, it would be soundly criticized, and rightly so.

Yes, we were at war. And it was another time. In many ways. But, those were still American citizens, whose rights were taken from them over suspicion, rather than evidence. Expedient? Perhaps. Right? I don't think so, and I knew some of the people who were in those camps. Their lives were changed forever, and not for the better.

That FDR did some things of which I do not approve does not alter my overall opinion of his Presidency. He was one of our best, but his record is not 100% one of doing the right thing.

Personally, I'm of two minds regarding the strategic bombing of civilian targets. I have no solid opinion of the morality of them. But, they happened, and can be discussed as part of the history of his administration, just as can the internment of US citizens.

He was still a great President, who did many things that still form the basis of much of progressive thinking. He also did some things that I don't see as positive. And thus it is with every President.

[xchrom]

78. manny -- i love ya -- but please don't buy into feeding this shit.

this is merely a 'folksy' wisdom shit smear of a great president.

'they all have their faults' bull shit -- and so forth.

now the OP has you tied in up in what seems like a reasonable conversation that in reality smears fdr.

[great white snark]

81. Yup, a great President who caused the death of more civilians than any other.

Maybe embracing facts and less hero worshiping and cheerleading is in order.

[Zorra]

82. Accurate analysis, well said.

[Rex]

84. Bingo!

nt.

[Romulox]

83. Enough is enough. nt

[Bluenorthwest]

94. When our local Birchers would bash FDR, my father would say 'look out, when they attack FDR

they are about to go after the New Deal again'.

[MineralMan]

95. The New Deal was of huge benefit to the nation.

No question about it. I'm not bashing FDR. I'm pointing out aspects of his administration that are contradictory. Every administration has those aspects. I don't know of a perfect administration, frankly.

We need a renewal of the principles of the New Deal. That's for sure.

[kratos00]

98. I see that your critique of FDR has left out

why he oversaw these bombing campaigns. Have you forgotten what the Nazis did in Europe beginning with starting the war itself and including killing millions in Eastern Europe and Russia in addition to the 6 million Jews he exterminated as if they were nothing more than insects. What options were open to FDR to stop these acts? Harsh words? Lets turn to Imperial Japan, again guilty of starting the war in the Pacific, attacking us at Pearl Harbor without warning and guilty of millions of deaths in China and Korea not to mention the myriad atrocities they committed on the civilian populations they enslaved. Criticizing FDR as a warmonger while ignoring that not only was this war forced on us but the consequences to humanity that would have been wrought by not stopping Hitler and Hirohito is both short sighted and naive.

[Doctor_J]

99. Do you believe that smearing FDR elevates Obama some how?

What's this post about?

Bring back unrec

[bluestate10]

101. Egad....Egad! Are you claiming FDR was not flawless? nt

[upaloopa]

104. We all know that history. I was born 1946.

Germany England Japan Italy also bombed civilians.
I don't see what point you are making.

[KoKo]

108. OMG! He was Worse than the Bushies! or Johnson!

Thank you for revealing this information about FDR. We didn't know what a SCAM that guy was.

They are ALL ALIKE! Nevermind. 's

What you left out was that it was a VERY DIFFERENT TIME in HISTORY! But, then. That wasn't what you were trying to get out there, was it?