Re: FDR

Disculpa Senora James Schrumpf, pero did you really mime the following on 3/15/2008 8:27 PM???
Quiet, "J. Zaphod Beeblebrox" <victor.king1NOSPAM@xxxxxxxxxxx> -- I'm
transmitting rage.

Disculpa Senora James Schrumpf, pero did you really mime the following on 3/14/2008 10:07 PM???
Quiet, "J. Zaphod Beeblebrox" <victor.king1NOSPAM@xxxxxxxxxxx> -- I'm
transmitting rage.
<snip>
This has GOT to be the biggest load of complete bull*** that I have ever read.

"Completely failed at its mission. OK, that's not really news?"

"Trick us into WWII to get the economy rolling?"

The depression was around 1928. We entered WWII around 12 years
later, - what the *** are you blabbering about?
We entered the depression on Black Tuesday, October 29, 1929. So much
for your grasp of history.

Eh? I hate to inform you of this but economic phenomena don't happen on
a specific day by someone flipping a switch. Depressions typically start of as recessions and develop over time. To say that depression began on the day of the crash is absurd. That's why said "around 1928"
because no one can pinpoint one day when it started.

What are you talking about? Actual real historians point to the stock market crash of October 29, 1929 as the beginning of The Depression. When you get an event like that which leads to an extended depression like it was, it's pretty easy to say "The Depression started RIGHT HERE."


And any "real" economist worth his salt will tell you that it's ludicrous to say that recession or depression or inflation can start on a A particular day - that makes no sense at all! If you claim that the crash was a major event in the depression - that's fine. I still stand by my original statement that the depression itself began well before Oct 29, 1929. And if you ask me for a precise date - NO, I CANNOT give you one.

You wanna argue it, take it up with someone else. I didn't make the date up.

You didn't make up the date of the crash - yes I agree. But I don't care if every historian under the sun claims that we "entered the depression" ON Oct 29, 1929 - that makes NO sense whatsoever.


FDR was elected in the 1932 election, the depression lasted until just before the US entered WWII and industry was mobilized to begin
supporting the Allied war effort -- Lend-Lease, if you know that that
was. None of FDR's programs did more than provide moral support during
the actual depression.

Bull. Most of the landmark New Deal programs started long before we entered WWII. In fact, if you want one particular year, it was probably
1933 - with Glass-Steagall and teh FDIC, the CWA, the FERA, the CCC and other agencies being established. In fact the New deal was pretty much
done for by 1939 before we entered WWII. Unless of course, you're implying that the New Deal had nothing to do with ending the depression.
Either way, to claim that FDR took us into war to get the economy rolling is the most revisionist thing I ever heard!

That's not what I was saying -- or least not what I meant you to understand I was saying.


Oh yeah? OK then, in that case please explain how exactly I should interpret "tricked us into WWII to get the economy rolling" (your own friggin' words, BTW)?

What I meant to convey was that all the New Deal policies that FDR started had no effect on ending the Depresson. All they did was provide moral support -- "Your Government Is Doing Something" -- to make people feel better.

I love this! Please provide me with data on at least a FEW economic indicators that will back up your absurd contention.

You gotta admit that government jobs -- i.e., New Deal jobs -- that were funded by taxes collected from a failing economy are not going to do anything to help that economy. A good argument can be -- and has been -- made that the extra taxes needed to pay for those ND programs kept the economy from coming back sooner than it did.


Baloney! The economy started to improve in 1933 and steadily continued to improve - but for a brief setback with the recession in 1937, from which it recovered pretty quickly.

And yes, I am saying that the ND had nothing to do with ending the Depression. Firing up the weapons industry in 1939-41 to be "The Arsenal of Democracy" for England had lots more to do with it than any ND program.


Complete revisionist nonsense - the depression ended long before 1941. Again, please provide me with some actual numbers on economic indicators that would support your point.


You know, all you asswipes who imply that YOU know better than the overwhelming majority of the American populace - well frankly, I don't
know if I should be depressed or scared.
The "overwhelming majority of the American populace" don't know the
true history of the FDR years. All they get is the "FDR led us through
the Big One" hagiography. If you really look at what was going on, you
get a slightly different picture.

Of course - this is teh standard elitist interpretation. We're all sheep basically.

On a related note, I've been reading Major *** Winters's WWII
memoirs ("Beyond Band of Brothers"), and I was struck by his comment
that right after 12/7 the country was amazed by a surprise attack by
the Japanese with no provocation.

SO?
So, you don't see how that if Americans had been aware of how the US
was cutting off Japanese raw materials, they might have been less
surprised by 12/7? You do recall that Adm. Kimmel was cashiered for
being less than preepared?

Knowing what we now know about what the US was doing to Japan in
terms of blockade (95% of oil and rubber imports cut off, plus other
shortages), it's obvious that ordinary Americans of the time were
totally unaware of what the Roosevelt administration was up to.

I always used to wonder about the term "Roosevelt's War" that I read
in many articles and books from the time, and wondered why such a
blame was placed on his head for it. It's obvious now, however.

OK - but what does this have to do with the original point of discussion? Are you claiming that FDR purposely blockaded Japan so that
he could get them to attack Pearl harbor so that we could then enter the
war? Wow!

You're insane, man!

Not at all. FDR blockaded Japan in protest of the Japanese war against mainland China. The Japanese attacked to try to get the US to back off long enough to allow them to consolidate their gains in China/Southeast Asia.



And what does this have to do with the depression, which was OVER by then?

Do you even know the history of the time? The British and Americans
were blockading the Japanese assets of oil and rubber.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causes_of_World_War_II#Competition_for_reso
urc es

http://tinyurl.com/3dqws9

Other than a few coal and iron deposits, Japan lacks true natural resources. Japan, the only Asian country with a burgeoning industrial economy at that time, feared that a lack of raw materials might hinder
its ability to fight a total war against a reinvigorated Soviet Union.
In the hopes of expanding its resources, Japan invaded Manchuria in
1931 and set about to consolidate its resources and develop its
economy. Insurgency by nationalists south of Manchuria compelled the
Japanese leaders to argue for a brief, three month war to knock out
Chinese power from the north. When it became clear that this time
estimate was absurd, plans for obtaining more resources began. The
Imperial Navy eventually began to feel that it did not have enough fuel
reserves.

To remedy this deficiency and ensure a safe supply of oil and other critical resources, Japan would have to challenge the European colonial
powers over the control of oil rich areas such as the Dutch East
Indies. Such a move against the colonial powers was however expected to
lead to open conflict also with the United States. On August 1941, the
crisis came to a head as the United States, which at the time supplied
80% of Japanese oil imports, initiated a complete oil embargo. This
threatened to cripple both the Japanese economy and military strength
once the strategic reserves would run dry. Faced with the choice of
either trying to appease the U.S., negotiate a compromise, find other
sources of supply or go to war over resources, Japan chose the latter.
Hoping to knock out the U.S. for long enough to be able to achieve and
consolidate their war-aims, the Japanese Navy attacked the U.S. Navy at
Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941. They mistakenly believed they would
have about a two year window to consolidate their conquests before the
United States could effectively respond and that the United States
would compromise long before they could get anywhere near Japan.

* * *

How many ordinary Americans of the era knew this was going on? Obviously not many, otherwise how to account for the total surprise
among ordinary Americans, especially since the US military had war
plans dealing with a Japanese attack on Pearl going back to the late
'20s, and had warnings of possible Japanese action against US assets
months before it happened. How many 1941 Americans were worried about
a possible Japanese attack at the time?

At least get a grasp of the total events of the era before you decide what's "insane" or not.

Sorry - I STILL don't get the point you're trying to make, because if it
is what I think it is, it's ludicrous.




What do you think it is? Hint: it's not that FDR lead us into WWII to end the Depression.


OK - I'm dumb. Please explain your point and enlighten me.

--
I'm so hip I have trouble seeing over my pelvis.
I'm so cool you can keep a side of meat in me for months.
.

Quantcast