FDR and Bush 43

"Chris Mark" wrote in message
...

Roosevelt also threw Japanese residents into detention camps by the tens
of
thousands. Imagine if Bush 43 tried to do that with Muslims.


Japanese residents? He interned Japanese, Italian and German foreign
nationals. Which is fine, every nation does that. But he also detained
American citizens of Japanese, Italian, and German descent.

From: "Steven P. McNicoll"

Japanese residents?

Not the best wording. I meant with the prhase to include Issei, who could not
by law become US citizens at the time, as well as native-born Americans of
Japanese ancestry (Nisei). I should have just said that.


Chris Mark

"WalterM140" wrote in message
...
Let's compare and contrast here, shall we?

Three years after the attack on Pearl Harbor, FDR has the Germans and
Japanese
by the throat.

Three years after 9/11, Bush 43 allows Al Qaeda to murder American
civilians
at will.

Walt

In 1944, sir, how many Americans died? I would suppose that for Normandy
alone, it is far higher. When Kamikazes hit US ships, and when Nazis shot US
POWs, was that FDR allowing them to do it at will for kicks? Stop trolling.

DEP

From: "Emmanuel Gustin"

Another big difference is that FDR made a big effort to build
alliances,

FDR also called Europe an incubator of wars, and it was one of his major
postwar policy goals to see that Europe was permanently disarmed.
Roosevelt’s vision was of a Europe that had been rendered strategically
irrelevant. As historian John Lamberton Harper has put it, he wanted “to
bring about a radical reduction in the weight of Europe� and thereby make
possible “the retirement of Europe from world politics.� This would enable
the US to go back to being left alone to pursue its own destiny in peace.
Of course, he died too soon to see his vision to full fruition. Truman turned
away from Roosevelt's vision, listening to George Kennan, who wanted to restore
Europe (really mostly Britain) to something like its pre-WWOne role in the
world with the US going back to its of the same. But Truman ultimately relied
on Dean Acheson's interventionist policies, which could be described as
Roosevelt's with teeth. These established the United States as a permanent
power in Europe at the behest of European and American interests. Acheson's
idea was that if the US provides military security for the European states, and
sees to it that none attack the other, their desire for military power will
wane over time and a demilitarized Europe will no longer pose a threat to the
US. And that is pretty much what has happened, despite the complication of the
Cold War and other distractions.


Chris Mark

On 21 Jun 2004 18:34:24 GMT, ost (Chris Mark) wrote:

FDR also called Europe an incubator of wars, and it was one of his major
postwar policy goals to see that Europe was permanently disarmed.

He bore a particular animus toward France. Sometimes it seems that his
principal object in a postwar Asia was to ensure that France would
never return to Indochina. (Too bad he didn't succeed!)

Britain was a tougher nut, given that it was in reality America's only
friend in the world with any potential for carrying a load (rather
like today). Roosevelt was equally skeptical about the British
empire, but he choked it down for the sake of Churchill.

As for Roosevelt's genius at coalition building, recall that it was
the cause of the Cold War that bedevilled the administrations of
Roosevelt, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Carter, and
Reagan ... did I leve anyone out? Roosevelt was so afraid that Russia
would make a separate peace with Germany that he handed over half of
Europe to Stalin.

It is easy to romanticize the leaders of the past, now that their
blunderings have been frozen into history.

I happen to be reading William Manchester's account of Tarawa atoll.
When the marines went ashore at Betio, it was a typical battalion that
lost half its men. Altogether, for that bit of coral, America gave up
more than three thousand of its sons.

all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (put Cubdriver in subject line)

The Warbird's Forum www.warbirdforum.com
The Piper Cub Forum www.pipercubforum.com
Viva Bush! weblog www.vivabush.org

From: Cub Driver warbird@m

He bore a particular animus toward France.

Yes. And he bluntly told DeGaulle that once Germany was disarmed, France would
have no need for more than a token armed force.

Sometimes it seems that his
principal object in a postwar Asia was to ensure that France would
never return to Indochina. (Too bad he didn't succeed!)

Amen. There's no reason that the French couldn't have been booted out of
Indochina in the same time-frame that the Dutch were drop-kicked out of
Indonesia. It's a safe bet that FDR's toe was itching to do just that.

Britain was a tougher nut, given that it was in reality America's only
friend in the world with any potential for carrying a load (rather
like today). Roosevelt was equally skeptical about the British
empire, but he choked it down for the sake of Churchill.

He was, however, cautious about making it appear that the US was fighting the
war to preserve the British Empire--which we were not.

As for Roosevelt's genius at coalition building, recall that it was
the cause of the Cold War that bedevilled the administrations of
Roosevelt, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Carter, and
Reagan ... did I leve anyone out? Roosevelt was so afraid that Russia
would make a separate peace with Germany that he handed over half
of
Europe to Stalin.

From some point in 1944 Roosevelt really was a very sick man. He certainly
should not have run again in 1944. Had he been fully in control of his
faculties, we probably would not have seen the war's denoument play out the way
it did. Certainly if FDR had remained vigorous throughout his tenure and until
stepping down (presumably) in 1949, we would probably have seen a very
different world, if only because Roosevelt had a very clear vision of how he
wanted to shape it and position America, whereas Truman did not. Truman grew
into the job. But that took years, just those critical years that were to
shape the decades to come.
But, in any case, short of full-scale war, there was no way to pry the Soviet
Union loose from the territory it had conquered by force of arms. Poland, East
Germany, et al, were fated to endure what they did as long as the Soviet Union
existed.
As far as Roosevelt's ability to build coalitions, during the war, the allies
were allied because they all had common enemies that had attacked them
militarily. After that enemy was vanquished, the alliance could be expected to
melt away. Only the development of the Cold War kept a semblance of it alive
in the West for a further half century.
The worry about the SU dropping out of the war on Germany was of course caused
by Russia dropping out of WWOne, allowing Germany to shift nearly a million
troops to the Western front just as the US was getting its troops onto the
continent. In the spring of 1918 von Ludendorff was able to attack and advance
40 miles in 10 days, inflicting some 300,000 casualties, bringing the British
5th Army to the edge of disaster and opening up a gap between the French and
British. Only the most fearful fighting stopped that German offensive.
Roosevelt did everything he could to ensure that such a thing didn't happen
again, and, of course, Stalin played on that fear.

It is easy to romanticize the leaders of the past, now that their
blunderings have been frozen into history.

True. And easy to forget how contentious were eras that now are depicted as
times of harmony and unified national purpose. FDR's true genius at building
alliances was not demonstrated among foreign leaders, but at home with domestic
political rivals and, especially, industry leaders, many of whom hated him with
a passion for all sorts of New Deal endeavors, not least among them the Wagner
Act. The fact that he turned many of them into dollar-a-year men and got them
to cooperate in building our massive war machine was one of his most impressive
accomplishments. It's taken for granted, but delving into the details of how
it was done reveals astonishing legerdemain by the Roosevelt Administration.

I happen to be reading William Manchester's account of Tarawa atoll.
When the marines went ashore at Betio, it was a typical battalion that
lost half its men. Altogether, for that bit of coral, America gave up
more than three thousand of its sons.

Another oddity of history: MacArthur's masterful, low casualty (after Buna)
New Guinea campaign is neglected or disdained while King's murderously bloody
Central Pacific campaign is hallowed in popular memory. But not for nothing
did Manchester rate MacArthur the greatest soldier in American history.


Chris Mark