[The Immortal Goon]

I understand your skepticism, but you may not want to disregard these allegations as conspiracy theory nuttery or partisan half-truths so quickly. I did some quick searches. Similar articles were also published by the LA Times and Washington Post.

Indeed, and all by the same author whom Kman is quoting. Keep in mind, this author, Rafael Medoff, is directly counter to every other biography about FDR I know of. Two of which have been cited in this thread, as well as the fact that FDR had (I believe) the highest number of Jews in his office in history—15%. There were all kinds of smears on him for handing the country over to the Jews. The old equivilent of Lew Rockwell used to call the "New Deal" the "Jew Deal."

Aside from Mr. Medoff, I haven't really found anyone in my brief research who has made a case for Roosevelt being anti-semetic at all. Quite the opposite. I also do think it's pretty damning, in honesty, to be asked by someone for a source which is given—but only after the context is edited out—as my last post went over.

It seems that Jewish people themselves were pretty happy with Roosevelt's compromise with the French.

But look. I'm not saying that Roosevelt would have had a modern conception of races or anything—though I do know that he was further along than most people of his time, if nothing else by virtue of Eleanor would would attend meetings of blacks and other minorities and push him to concede. But the Libertarian crazies need a boogeyman, and he has been it in the US since Reagan at least.

How does libertarian Newspeak justify anything it does? Change all terms so that you're a Nazi if you don't agree with the libertarians. How do you paint the guy that beat the Nazis into being a Nazi? He secretly agreed with the Nazis.

So far as I can track down, that's all the further this has gone.

Lew Rockwell is a great intellectual and he is more trustworthy than any university professor, despite his bias, bias doesnt make one a liar, a fact that most of you university people seem incapable to comprehend. Your also forgetting that it is impossible to be unbiased when it comes to history, everyone have an opinion on economics and history, they might be centrist, left-wing or right-wing but everyone is biased some way or the other, that is just how humans work.

If he's such a great intellectual and you're so proud of him, why did you hide him as a source?

And bias doesn't necessarily make you a liar, but it does give you a reason to lie. Especially if you're someone that thinks getting money makes you right, and you make money by lying.

And it is quite possible to be unbiased when it comes to history. This line of thinking, that your opinion is as important as fact is the first thing you need to purge undergraduate students of. I'm finishing my scrubbing this term, actually, by having had my students read Davis' The Return of Martin Guerre. In it, she makes lots of assumptions about what she would do in certain situations and applies them to the historical figure. In a piece from another historian, he criticizes this approach by pointing out that you need evidence in order to come to any kind of conclusion. Would a woman know who her husband is, even after not seeing him for ten years? We like to think so, but if there's no evidence, how do we know?

After the undergraduate student learns that he needs evidence to make conclusions—that is, be objective—he or she can go on to learn real history. You should try it, Kman.

No matter what source you use it will be "completely biased", there are no historians devoid of bias.

The thing I pointed out was that the author used one word as a quote and then built a mythology around that without sharing any more than that one word. It's like those production companies that change around reviews to look positive:

Salon’s Willa Paskin is quoted in the ad calling “The Newsroom” “captivating, riveting, rousing.” Here’s what she actually wrote: “The results are a captivating, riveting, rousing, condescending, smug, infuriating mixture, a potent potion that advertises itself as intelligence-enhancing but is actually just crazy-making.”

Except the ad actually got three words quoted instead of one. Further, the bias is the same. We don't sit and wonder, "Why would HBO say that someone who hated their show really liked it?" It's obvious. Why would someone who hates FDR lift one word, give us no context to it, and then present us with a conclusion? It's obvious.

And your not a partisan hack mister flaming commie history professor? Tell me more about your superhuman abilities please.

I can never die.

Jews were being given their full rights while a quota was imposed on how many of them could work as doctors? That is twisted and distorted logic being used there, if they were given full rights they would have been able to work in whatever profession they wanted to work in and not have a certain percentage imposed on them (Hitler imposed a percentage of 0% unlike the % that Roosevelt preferred).

As I already went over, the Jews were happy with the guarantee, the French (who had—and still arguably have—a terrible official record with Jews, stemming from before and after the Dreyfus Affair) were happy with the concession on their part, the North Africans were happy with this. Now they can go fight Nazis. Or, I guess, FDR could have sat there and fought with the French, pissing off the Jews, and let the Nazis keep murdering more Jews in order to make you happy sixty years later. Maybe he made the wrong decision there.

I just trust Lew Rockwell far more based on my intimite knowledge of his incorruptable character, he was a man of firm conviction during the darkest days of the libertarian movement.

Yes, when he was proven utterly wrong he still maintained that he was right. What a hero.

FDR probably had a machiavellian calculating streak about him, he probably understood that the jew hatred was not nearly as strong in the United States as it was in Hitler's Germany so despite his strong personal hatred of jews he tried to kiss the ass of the jewish community by doing this in order to gain political capital.

There is absolutely 0 evidence for this, but as long as you believe hard enough, maybe it'll work. It hasn't come close to believing in the Invisible Hand saving us, but maybe this time...

[hybridmoments82]

You needn't look much further than Executive Order 9066 to legitimately tarnish the reputation of FDR.

To cite some biased source on his apparent hatred, disdain, dislike, or even mild discomfort in regard to Jews is absurd.

[Kman]

Indeed, and all by the same author whom Kman is quoting. Keep in mind, this author, Rafael Medoff, is directly counter to every other biography about FDR I know of.

Who cares? The history profession is full of people like you, communists or closet communists who love the welfare state and who dont like painting the father of the american welfare state in a bad light, the fact that none of these have highlighted his jew hatred doesnt mean anything.

Aside from Mr. Medoff, I haven't really found anyone in my brief research who has made a case for Roosevelt being anti-semetic at all. Quite the opposite.

Here is an idea, read the book mentioned in my OP, I am sure it has sources.

It seems that Jewish people themselves were pretty happy with Roosevelt's compromise with the French.

Yeah I am sure their acceptance of this mistreatment had nothing to do with them being shit-scared of being subjected to the kind of insane persecution that they had been subjected to in Germany and other countries were jew-hatred was widespread. Better accept mild persecution now than resist it and attract the kind of oppression they were being subjected to in many european countries at the time.

How do you paint the guy that beat the Nazis into being a Nazi? He secretly agreed with the Nazis.

Both Stalin and Trotsky were communists, that didnt prevent Stalin from having an ice-pick driven through Trotsky's skull. People who are ideologically close can still end up fighting each other.

If he's such a great intellectual and you're so proud of him, why did you hide him as a source?

A) Lew Rockwell is not the source, it was something posted on a site he owns, the source is Thomas DiLorenzo.

B) There is this thing called Google, you can take the text of something, highlight it and press CTRL+c then go to google and paste it in with CTRL + V and quickly find where it was posted.

C) The original source is also described in the OP, a book with Y name from X author.

And bias doesn't necessarily make you a liar, but it does give you a reason to lie.

Then everyone have a reason to lie because everyone suffers from bias. You are basically saying that everyone who admits to being a non-centrist is a liar, well I am a non-centrist and I never lie because I dont need to lie, truth and logic is on my side, I can simply tell the truth and still win, it is the commies that need to distort reality and hide how people actually are because their guys have a long history of evil actions, people like Ron Paul doesnt, he is as clean as a whistle because he doesnt support the use of aggressive force.

In it, she makes lots of assumptions about what she would do in certain situations and applies them to the historical figure. In a piece from another historian, he criticizes this approach by pointing out that you need evidence in order to come to any kind of conclusion.

She doesnt need evidence to know how she herself would react to something if she was put in a certain historical situation, she has knowledge of her own preferences, its called introspection.

Would a woman know who her husband is, even after not seeing him for ten years? We like to think so, but if there's no evidence, how do we know?

WHAT?

After the undergraduate student learns that he needs evidence to make conclusions—that is, be objective—he or she can go on to learn real history. You should try it, Kman.

Please explain this to me like I am a 5-year old because you are not making any sense.

The thing I pointed out was that the author used one word as a quote and then built a mythology around that without sharing any more than that one word. It's like those production companies that change around reviews to look positive:

One word in the english language can still carry plenty of meaning, when FDR says that german policies against the jews were "understandable" then he is implying a ton, he is implying that he supports the majority of the outrageous policies that the germans were using against the jews during this time. Simple english, not hard to understand and very hard to distort.

As I already went over, the Jews were happy with the guarantee

You call it a guarentee, I would call it a punishment designed to keep the uppity jews from becoming numerous in academia and the healthcare sector. Saying that they were happy with this is also ridicilous, you need to think a little deeper than just official announcements from some jewish interest group and you need to consider whether they might have good reasons for not being 100% honest about their feelings towards a certain policy.

Yes, when he was proven utterly wrong he still maintained that he was right. What a hero.

This doesnt even make any sense.

There is absolutely 0 evidence for this, but as long as you believe hard enough, maybe it'll work.

A lack of evidence is not evidence of absence my friend.

[The Immortal Goon]

Who cares? The history profession is full of people like you, communists or closet communists who love the welfare state and who dont like painting the father of the american welfare state in a bad light, the fact that none of these have highlighted his jew hatred doesnt mean anything.

Oh, a conspiracy. I get it. Despite the fact that:

You needn't look much further than Executive Order 9066 to legitimately tarnish the reputation of FDR.

There's an additional conspiracy that only Lew Rockwell and friends, who have no consistent evidence, know about. Alright, that's believable.

Here is an idea, read the book mentioned in my OP, I am sure it has sources.

Yeah, maybe. Though if you're going to stand by it, you should read it too. Since the summary was pathetic.

Yeah I am sure their acceptance of this mistreatment had nothing to do with them being shit-scared of being subjected to the kind of insane persecution that they had been subjected to in Germany and other countries were jew-hatred was widespread. Better accept mild persecution now than resist it and attract the kind of oppression they were being subjected to in many european countries at the time.

From what the sources seem to say, that's what FDR thought too. Get what was possible for the Jews, they agreed as they were scared and attracted "the kind of oppression they were being subjected to in many european countries at the time," were giving, and FDR gave them a guarantee that there wouldn't be persecutions. They were happy to have that—as you noted—and FDR was happy to help them and go fight Nazis.

Both Stalin and Trotsky were communists, that didnt prevent Stalin from having an ice-pick driven through Trotsky's skull. People who are ideologically close can still end up fighting each other.

Okay. Both Stalin and Trotsky were Bolsheviks. Are you saying that FDR was a Nazi?

A) Lew Rockwell is not the source, it was something posted on a site he owns, the source is Thomas DiLorenzo.

Oh, he's just publishing the information...and thus has nothing to do with the information? That's your argument?

B) There is this thing called Google, you can take the text of something, highlight it and press CTRL+c then go to google and paste it in with CTRL + V and quickly find where it was posted.

This is going to be stunning...but that's how I found the information. The question is why you didn't cite it, as is per normal on the site.

C) The original source is also described in the OP, a book with Y name from X author.

No link. I googled it.

Then everyone have a reason to lie because everyone suffers from bias. You are basically saying that everyone who admits to being a non-centrist is a liar, well I am a non-centrist and I never lie because I dont need to lie, truth and logic is on my side, I can simply tell the truth and still win, it is the commies that need to distort reality and hide how people actually are because their guys have a long history of evil actions, people like Ron Paul doesnt, he is as clean as a whistle because he doesnt support the use of aggressive force.

Yes, always the conspiracy. Anyway, Ron Paul is a statist that has lived off the state and given state money to his family his entire life. But he tells you how wonderful he is so I guess you buy that. Your argument makes no sense anyway. Ron Paul is perfect and "is as clean as a whistle," while also, "everyone [has] a reason to lie."

She doesnt need evidence to know how she herself would react to something if she was put in a certain historical situation, she has knowledge of her own preferences, its called introspection.

But not history. Nor is it considered accurate. The fact that you think that guessing what you would do and applying that makes relevant history says a lot.

WHAT?

As in the case of Martin Guerre. Surely someone as educated and smart of yourself knows about him.

Please explain this to me like I am a 5-year old because you are not making any sense.

You bad at history.

You don't understand anything about history.

My undergraduate students are more literate and critical of information than you are.

One word in the english language can still carry plenty of meaning, when FDR says that german policies against the jews were "understandable" then he is implying a ton, he is implying that he supports the majority of the outrageous policies that the germans were using against the jews during this time. Simple english, not hard to understand and very hard to distort.

Then imagine how much damage two words would do! But he doesn't use that. Nor give context. Instead he hopes people that understand less about history than a freshman in college will slavishly lick his hands and believe him without looking at any evidence.

You call it a guarentee, I would call it a punishment designed to keep the uppity jews from becoming numerous in academia and the healthcare sector. Saying that they were happy with this is also ridicilous, you need to think a little deeper than just official announcements from some jewish interest group and you need to consider whether they might have good reasons for not being 100% honest about their feelings towards a certain policy.

This is contradictory to what you said earlier in this post.

Yeah I am sure their acceptance of this mistreatment had nothing to do with them being shit-scared of being subjected to the kind of insane persecution that they had been subjected to in Germany and other countries were jew-hatred was widespread. Better accept mild persecution now than resist it and attract the kind of oppression they were being subjected to in many european countries at the time.

This doesnt even make any sense.

yes it does.

A lack of evidence is not evidence of absence my friend.

You are making the charge. You make the evidence. Otherwise it's just more conspiracy theories.

[neopagan]

Oh no, here we go again. The poor bloody Jews. Oi vay, my people, my people. Never mind that they believe themsleves to be God's chosen ones. And the rest of us are just gentile inferiors. That's not racism. That is not important.

Are they not at least partially to blame for their circumstance?

[Kman]

Oh, a conspiracy. I get it. Despite the fact that:

I never said it was a conspiracy, conspiracies implies that people plan together, I think university history departments are just overrun with people of your ideological persuasion, Thomas Woods an austrian economist and historian who got his history PHD from Columbia and BA from Harvard, has said that the history departments he got his education in were overrun by closet-marxists. I just think that history departments have been corrupted just like I know for a fact that economics departments have been corrupted, they virtually only hire pro-government, pro-welfare people so it is no wonder that none of the historians felt a great urge to slander the creator of the american welfare state all that much, not a conspiracy just a collection of individual preferences really.

Yeah, maybe. Though if you're going to stand by it, you should read it too. Since the summary was pathetic.

Why exactly was it pathetic? So far you have been unable to challenge the accuracy of any claims in my OP, nothing was taken out of context, FDR clearly explained that he sympathized with the complaints of the Nazis about the success of the jews in Germany, the fact that his program of jew quotas was shrouded in some bullshit about helping them doesnt change the fact that on a basic level FDR agreed very much with Hitler, FDR also hated the success of jews.

From what the sources seem to say, that's what FDR thought too. Get what was possible for the Jews, they agreed as they were scared and attracted "the kind of oppression they were being subjected to in many european countries at the time," were giving, and FDR gave them a guarantee that there wouldn't be persecutions.

Setting a percentage of how many jewish doctors that can exist is persecution......... If you set it at lets say 15% of the overall doctor population then you could easily end up shutting out a massive amount of jews who want to become doctors and help people for a living, cant you grasp this that a jew who cannot get into his dream education because of some racist government quota would feel extremely oppressed? How would you feel if 50% of job openings were barred for you because of some government quota rule? You would feel oppressed and persecuted.

Okay. Both Stalin and Trotsky were Bolsheviks. Are you saying that FDR was a Nazi?

I am saying he was strongly sympathetic to Nazi Germany and Hitler, why he went to war with them I dont know, probably he was just bored and wanted to play war and geo-politics. Not entirely unlikely, the reasons for war in WW1 were pretty weak also but the political leaders still did it because hey they would not be ones dying of infections in the trenches, they would just get to play generals.

No link. I googled it.

I am pretty sure there is no internet link to a physical book that was just published (unless you use torrents which I dont think this site approves of).

Yes, always the conspiracy.

Has nothing to do with a conspiracy, this is just your automatic fallback position for whenever I bring up a point a little bit too advanced for you. Let me repeat, I think it is impossible for anyone in the history profession to be unbiased, it has nothing to do with conspiracies or colluding with others, even in a world with no conspiracies ever it would still be impossible for the individual historians to ever be unbiased, we all have opinions on what is right and wrong.

But not history. Nor is it considered accurate. The fact that you think that guessing what you would do and applying that makes relevant history says a lot.

I never claimed it was history, I simply responded to your non-sensical example.

As in the case of Martin Guerre. Surely someone as educated and smart of yourself knows about him.

You bad at history.

You don't understand anything about history.

My undergraduate students are more literate and critical of information than you are.

Oh noes the commie history professor thinks I am bad at history, I am so surprised. You are proof of my bias hypothesis because you are letting your bias cloud your judgement when it comes to me, you have not been able to disprove anything in my OP, on the contrary you have found sources supporting them and yet you continue ranting about how I am bad at being critical of my sources, clearly you just dont like me and have let your bias completely cloud your judgement mister un-biased scientist.

Then imagine how much damage two words would do! But he doesn't use that. Nor give context. Instead he hopes people that understand less about history than a freshman in college will slavishly lick his hands and believe him without looking at any evidence.

The President stated that he felt the whole Jewish problem should
be studied very carefully and that progress should be definitely
planned. In other words, the number of Jews engaged in the practice
of the professions (law, medicine, etc.) should be definitely limited to
the percentage that the Jewish population in North Africa bears to
the whole of the North African population . Such a plan would there-
fore permit the Jews to engage in the professions, at the same time
would not permit them to overcrowd the professions, and would pre-
sent an unanswerable argument that they were being given their full
rights. To the foregoing, General Nogues agreed generally, stating
at the same time that it would be a sad thing for the French to win the
war merely to open the way for the Jews to control the professions
and the business world of North Africa. The President stated that
his plan would further eliminate the specific and understandable com-
plaints which the Germans bore towards the Jews in Germany, namely,
that while they represented a small part of the population, over fifty
percent of the lawyers, doctors, school teachers, college professors,
etc., in Germany, were Jews.

Here is the entire paragraph, I will let people judge for themselves whether this assessment of FDR was out of context, I dont think so, it was very clear that FDR supported the types of things Hitler did, limiting the access of jews to certain jobs.

Imagine if the US used the same kind of incredibly racist policy for the NFL or the NHL, no more than 10% blacks in those professions, there would be a firestorm in the US and blacks would cry far and wide about oppression and racism but hey in your mind doing this to jews is not oppression.

[The Immortal Goon]

I never said it was a conspiracy, conspiracies implies that people plan together, I think university history departments are just overrun with people of your ideological persuasion

So it's not a conspiracy...it's just everyone having a secret-agenda to corrupt facts that don't coincide with your bizarre interpretation of the world?

Sounds like typical libertarian foil-hat garbage to me.

Why exactly was it pathetic?

That the summary was akin to this:

Kman said his own argument and intellect were, "pathetic," and he himself mentioned that, "he sympathized with the complaints of the Nazis" and wanted some "jew quotas." When I pushed further about it, he admitted that libertarianism was, "bullshit" but he continued to follow it simply because he, "hated...jews."

Setting a percentage of how many jewish doctors that can exist is persecution

Better accept mild persecution now than resist it and attract the kind of oppression they were being subjected to in many european countries at the time.

It seems you can see the reasoning behind this perfectly. You just, for some reason, accept it for yourself but not for FDR when that seems to be what the evidence suggests.

I am saying he was strongly sympathetic to Nazi Germany and Hitler, why he went to war with them I dont know, probably he was just bored and wanted to play war and geo-politics. Not entirely unlikely, the reasons for war in WW1 were pretty weak also but the political leaders still did it because hey they would not be ones dying of infections in the trenches, they would just get to play generals.

I am pretty sure there is no internet link to a physical book that was just published (unless you use torrents which I dont think this site approves of).

I was speaking of your uncited OP.

Has nothing to do with a conspiracy, this is just your automatic fallback position for whenever I bring up a point a little bit too advanced for you. Let me repeat, I think it is impossible for anyone in the history profession to be unbiased, it has nothing to do with conspiracies or colluding with others, even in a world with no conspiracies ever it would still be impossible for the individual historians to ever be unbiased, we all have opinions on what is right and wrong.

I'm not sure you know what "conspiracy" means. When you think that everyone is against you, especially as a broad group like, "historians," and are actively suppressing the truth that you somehow know despite the fact history refutes it...I'm just saying...

I never claimed it was history, I simply responded to your non-sensical example.

Oh...so you know that this is all just bullshit someone made up? It's the same thing pop-historians play with the, "Guess who was gay—someone you like!" and then string together sources to try and make an argument that will sell a lot of books. It's bullshit.

Oh noes the commie history professor thinks I am bad at history, I am so surprised. You are proof of my bias hypothesis because you are letting your bias cloud your judgement when it comes to me, you have not been able to disprove anything in my OP, on the contrary you have found sources supporting them and yet you continue ranting about how I am bad at being critical of my sources, clearly you just dont like me and have let your bias completely cloud your judgement mister un-biased scientist.

Actually you should be able to prove your OP. I have found sources that the author has cut up in order to make a point, and contextualized things in a way that makes more sense given that FDR had a large amount of Jews as friends and colleagues. Your explanation that he was secretly a Nazi that went to war with Nazi Germany because he was bored needs evidence. Not the other way around.

Here is the entire paragraph, I will let people judge for themselves whether this assessment of FDR was out of context, I dont think so, it was very clear that FDR supported the types of things Hitler did, limiting the access of jews to certain jobs.

Imagine if the US used the same kind of incredibly racist policy for the NFL or the NHL, no more than 10% blacks in those professions, there would be a firestorm in the US and blacks would cry far and wide about oppression and racism but hey in your mind doing this to jews is not oppression.

Either FDR, with the consent of the Jews (as per my earlier source) was dealing with an notoriously anti-semetic French colonial system to guarantee some rights to Jews, or FDR was a secret Nazi that decided to fight the Nazis because he was bored.

Alright, I can handle letting the public work through those two explanations on their own

[ThirdTerm]

The Roosevelt administration's Jewish refugee policy was very restrictive and FDR initially stated in 1937 that the Jewish refugees should be resettled elsewhere when American Jewish leaders pleaded with him to allow them to settle in the US. It was Henry Morgenthau, Jr. who played a major role in the executive creation of the US War Refugee Board in 1944 by confronting FDR, which saved as many as 200,000 Jews.

The U.S. immigration system severely limited the number of German Jews admitted during the Nazi years to about 26,000 annually — but even that quota was less than 25% filled during most of the Hitler era, because the Roosevelt administration piled on so many extra requirements for would-be immigrants. For example, starting in 1941, merely leaving behind a close relative in Europe would be enough to disqualify an applicant — on the absurd assumption that the Nazis could threaten the relative and thereby force the immigrant into spying for Hitler. Why did the administration actively seek to discourage and disqualify Jewish refugees from coming to the United States? Why didn't the president quietly tell his State Department (which administered the immigration system) to fill the quotas for Germany and Axis-occupied countries to the legal limit? That alone could have saved 190,000 lives. It would not have required a fight with Congress or the anti-immigration forces; it would have involved minimal political risk to the president. Every president's policy decisions are shaped by a variety of factors, some political, some personal. In Roosevelt's case, a pattern of private remarks about Jews, some of which I recently discovered at the Central Zionist Archives in Jerusalem and from other sources, may be significant.
http://articles.latimes.com/2013/apr/07/opinion/la-oe-medoff-roosevelt-holocaust-20130407

The Auschwitz issue did reach the president’s desk but FDR rejected the British requests to bomb the railway lines to Auschwitz and the Undersecretary for War, John J. McCloy, confessed that he raised the issue with FDR, who was again very reluctant to go the extra mile to save the Jews.

In 1986, three years before his death, McCloy had a taped private conversation with Morgenthau's son Henry III. The 91-year-old McCloy told the junior Morgenthau that he of course had raised the issue with FDR. He said, "I remember talking one time with Mr. Roosevelt about it, and he was irate. He said, 'Why, the idea!... They'll only move it down the road a little way.' " One can take FDR’s meaning that the Nazis would have built other death camps and continue the killing. McCloy recollected that FDR "made it very clear" to him that bombing Auschwitz "wouldn't have done any good." Moreover, Roosevelt said that bombing Auschwitz would be "provocative" to the Nazis and he wouldn't "have anything to do" with the idea. FDR warned Morgenthau that Americans would be accused of "bombing these innocent people" at Auschwitz, adding, "We'll be accused of participating in this horrible business!"
http://www.speroforum.com/a/ATIVEPEKRU23/67134-Franklin-Delano-Roosevelts-sin-of-omission-Auschwitz

[The Immortal Goon]

You'll note that both of those sources are from Rafael Medoff, the same guy Kman cited. The same guy that explicitly cut context out of his context when he was challenged.

I'm not saying that FDR was perfect, or that he loved Jews. Or anything like that. I'm just saying all of these accusations come from the same guy who, in my limited amount of looking around, seems to have a problem with conveying relevant parts of data that would question his view; a view which seems to be based on getting Jews to vote Republican, who champions Hoover as a champion of the Jewish people (despite being an admirer of Adolf Hitler, pushing for James Clark McReynolds, a notorious anti-semite that refused to work with Jews; was a big influence on the American First Movement—attempting to stop action against Germany in WWII; who went to meet with Lindbergh to try and impeach Roosevelt after Lindbergh announced, "The [Jews] greatest danger to this country lies in their large ownership and influence in our motion pictures, our press, our radio and our government. I am not attacking either the Jewish or the British people. Both races, I admire. But I am saying that the leaders of both the British and the Jewish races, for reasons which are as understandable from their viewpoint as they are inadvisable from ours, for reasons which are not American, wish to involve us in the war. We cannot blame them for looking out for what they believe to be their own interests, but we also must look out for ours. We cannot allow the natural passions and prejudices of other peoples to lead our country to destruction. The Roosevelt administration is the third powerful group which has been carrying this country toward war."); the same guy that writes about how the Democrats need to get on board with attacking Iran.

The fact that the only person saying this stuff (and from what I see, a lot of it seems to be easily pushed away when the evidence is looked at) has an obvious political motivation and bias, does not make me trust him.

Now, if actual historians came out and said this stuff—it would be one thing. But this is really akin to taking Rachel Maddow's books as serious history. They're not. This isn't either.

[hybridmoments82]

Oh no, here we go again. The poor bloody Jews. Oi vay, my people, my people. Never mind that they believe themsleves to be God's chosen ones. And the rest of us are just gentile inferiors. That's not racism. That is not important.

Are they not at least partially to blame for their circumstance?

What Judeo-Christian religion does not hold that their particular people are somehow superior? Isn't the Christian ideal that "we're all going to heaven and you're going to hell" exactly the same thing just a little more wordy?

[jimjam]

then why is he such a revered president?

F.D.R. = Cash money from my earned benefit into my bank account every month to spend as I wish.

Republicans = A "voucher" payable to the Medical Industrial Complex.



FDR and the Jews? That is an old saw which, when one considers the rather full plate that FDR was dealing with, holds little if any water. With the wonderful benefit of hindsight, it is not very difficult to locate one of FDR's many errors and analyze it out of the context of the time and the full range of problems facing the man and attribute to him qualities and motivations that ring false. FDR had the uncommon ability to identify the key issues of the time and act accordingly. The key issue facing the world at the time was to win the war. A diversion of resources to the benefit of any minority would have delayed the winning of the war to the detriment of all.

[Rich]

The key issue facing the world at the time was to win the war. A diversion of resources to the benefit of any minority would have delayed the winning of the war to the detriment of all.

From the beginning of 1943, it was pretty clear that Germany and Japan were going to lose. The priority should have been to contain Soviet expansionism, by landing as soon as possible in the Balkans, Scandinavia and Manchuria. Although to be fair the Conservative's darling MacArthur behaviour was even more disgraceful. The Philippines were only a strategic priority for MacArthur's ego.

[Bulaba Khan Jones]

From the beginning of 1943, it was pretty clear that Germany and Japan were going to lose. The priority should have been to contain Soviet expansionism, by landing as soon as possible in the Balkans, Scandinavia and Manchuria. Although to be fair the Conservative's darling MacArthur behaviour was even more disgraceful. The Philippines were only a strategic priority for MacArthur's ego.

Are you joking? Do you know what the world looked like in 1943? Or at least Europe:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Easte ... 944-12.png

Land Western Allied troops in the middle of German occupied Europe, in the Balkans? Land troops in 1943 in Manchuria when we hadn't even half-finished securing the Pacific, let alone contain the Japanese Home Islands? Do you know that the Japanese were invading China? Do you know that they had a large bulk of their military forces in China and the Manchukuo occupied region? And Scandinavia? What the hell?

It's like you aren't aware that we were allied with the Soviet Union, that they were on the side of the Allies, and they were in the middle of fighting 75-80% of Germany's entire armed forces. And you're suggesting that in 1943 we should've done all those things, betrayed our alliance with the Soviets and our close military cooperation with them (and I don't suppose you're aware we were helping to supply them with additional military hardware) and put troops right in the middle of German and Japanese territory deep in occupied Europe and Asia? That is absolutely and completely insane. You need to read a book on World War II.

[Rei Murasame]

It's because Rich is a liberal, and as such he sees Western European and North American capitalists as near-invincible and able to magically parachute soldiers into the middle of Manchuria like something out of GI Joe.

They always forget that the USSR was doing a lot of the heavy-lifting for them.

[Rothbardian]

Funny how this sort of info is never taught in the brainwashing schools (government schools) eh?

They also don't teach how every single one of his policies was an absolute failure. My favorites are using lucky numbers to set the price of gold and to solve the problem of a starving public by paying farmers to stop growing food and burying their livestock in mass graves instead of taking them to market.

This is what solved our economic woes, according to popular opinion. Which is interesting because the federal reserve has finally openly taken credit for both causing and exacerbating the great depression.

[Xbow]

They also don't teach how every single one of his policies was an absolute failure.

They also don't mention FDR instigating the greatest theft of wealth of that century in forcing common American citizens to sell their secure gold savings for an artificially low price under the threat of imprisonment. But of course FDR's wealthy cronies were informed about his soon to be announced Executive Order 6102 in time for them to move their holdings offshore. Cute! FDR was quite a guy.

[Bulaba Khan Jones]

It's because Rich is a liberal, and as such he sees Western European and North American capitalists as near-invincible and able to magically parachute soldiers into the middle of Manchuria like something out of GI Joe.

They always forget that the USSR was doing a lot of the heavy-lifting for them.

I'm actually really glad you brought that up. There are a lot of Americans (and I have no idea if this misconception is common in Canada so I'll avoid saying North Americans as a whole) completely ignorant that by the time we and the Western Allies landed in France in the middle of 1944, Germany was already collapsing and it was a matter of time before the Soviets finished advancing to Berlin. The Soviets had already countered virtually the entire German line, except for a few notable places like Leningrad. They were pushing back the Germans day by day, and I think around the summer of 1944 when we landed in France, the Soviets had roughly reached Warsaw. I could look it up but I think that's roughly where the Soviets had reached IIRC.

Another verifiable fact underlining all of this is that between 75-80% of ALL German soldiers were fighting and dying on the Eastern Front. 80% of Germany's military might was committed to the war against the Soviet Union from 1941. By the time the Western Allies landed in France, 2 years had already passed on that, Soviet victory was all but guaranteed, and Germany would have collapsed anyways. We took some pressure off the Soviets, but the Germans had already lost. It was just a matter of time for the Soviets to finish advancing.

And yet, many fellow Americans of mine are completely ignorant of this stuff. They either think America single-handedly beat Germany, or that America did most of the fighting in Europe.

So yeah, I just wanted to elaborate on what you said. People tend to forget that and think Patton "beat Germany" and all that nonsense.

[jimjam]

They also don't mention FDR instigating the greatest theft of wealth of that century in forcing common American citizens to sell their secure gold savings for an artificially low price under the threat of imprisonment. But of course FDR's wealthy cronies were informed about his soon to be announced Executive Order 6102 in time for them to move their holdings offshore. Cute! FDR was quite a guy.

Without question FDR had made more than one deal with the devil (this is part of the job description for the POTUS) and many decisions, with the benefit of hind sight, can be judged abject failures (packing the supreme court, IMO, rates as his dumbest). His actions on gold holdings were, as you point out, nothing short of robbery. But, he was an exceedingly complex man facing an exceedingly complex menu of problems. Certainly he did more than help his wealthy cronies as indicated by the hatred of the plutocracy toward him and the concurrent love of him by the common man. To judge the man in the light of one or more of his actions in isolation will undoubtedly lead to whatever predetermined conclusion that one may conjure. He must be evaluated in the context of the totality of his actions in the realities of his time.

every single one of his policies was an absolute failure

Very astute and unbiased evaluation. Hey, he gets credit for a sort of perfection .

[Rancid]

FDR set forth the path for the new world order.

[Xbow]

They always forget that the USSR was doing a lot of the heavy-lifting for them.

And the USA and the UK was doing a lot of the heavy lifting for the Soviets as well. Stalin was a realist, that's why he was screeching for the allies to open the western front and cheering the RAF and 8th Air Force bombers on every time they flattened a German city or industrial complex. He especially liked the costly (to the US and UK) destruction of the German conventional and synthetic fuel production facilities that steadily choked the German war machine to death. Uncle Joe liked that and didn't expend one Ruble on that program. And Rei, refresh my memory, I don't seem to recall any logistic support coming from the Soviets to the UK and USA but the UK and USA did hand over plenty to the Soviets . Upwards of 20,000 tanks and half tracks, 17,000 combat aircraft and about one thousand 5000-10,000 ton ship loads of food and medical supplies out of the 1400-1600 loads that were delivered to Uncle Joe and his boys and girls. That's heavy lifting. (people love to forget that shyte when it is convenient to do so)

This is just one other instance of Allied heavy lifting: RAF and USAAF Oil Campaign chronology of World War II

And yet, many fellow Americans of mine are completely ignorant of this stuff. They either think America single-handedly beat Germany, or that America did most of the fighting in Europe.

So yeah, I just wanted to elaborate on what you said. People tend to forget that and think Patton "beat Germany" and all that nonsense.

No they (American's) don't think that the USA (Patton) beat Germany on its own. Perhaps your buddies are exceedingly dumb and you should find a better class of cronies to hang out with that can actually read. Or do you actually believe that only ground operations count? As I recall there was war in the Air and on the land and the Sea.

And there are these facts:

The air campaigns against Germany by the UK and the USA constituted 100% of the damage inflicted on Germany's war making capacity from 1941 until 1945 and and constituted approximately 40% of the war effort of the UK and USA against Germany. And this while Russia did nothing on the strategic level against Germany's ability to make war. Flattening Germany's major cities and thousands of war production facilities had an enormously negative effect on Germany's ability to make war on its Western, Eastern and Southern fronts. The British army stomped all the German's that were put in its path, the US Army stomped all the German's that were put in its path and the Russian Army stomped all the German's placed in its path. Where is the argument?

And you must consider that Germany was isolated from its maritime resupply routs by the Royal Navy that was powerfully augmented in the Atlantic and Mediterranean by the US Atlantic fleet. The US Atlantic fleet from 1942 onward consisted of at the minimum seven battleships, one fleet and seven escort carriers, three heavy and nine light cruisers, and 76 destroyers. This nearly doubled the strength of the Royal Navy's forces in the Atlantic and Mediterranean. And that doesn't include the US 10th fleet that was tasked with ASW warfare and keeping the sea lanes open from the USA to Europe. The Russian's did nothing in that respect except in the area of the final leg of the routes to Murmansk and Arkhangelsk with the few ships they had but most of the Job of keeping that vital supply rout open came from the US Navy, the Royal Navy and Canada. The Angelo-American contribution to the total war effort against Germany was far larger than the Soviet Effort. And of course the USA didn't get an over abundance of help from anyone in the Pacific Campaign against Japan. Yeah, I think the USA played its large part of that titanic conflict very, very well.

And once again I have never heard any American with an ounce of brains say that Patton beat Germany alone...I think you made that shit up, but I am at a loss to understand why you would misrepresent Americans in that absurd way. Could it be an attempt at, self aggrandizement?