PDA

View Full Version : Lindberg on strafing



rcocean
08-20-2006, 10:20 AM
Just wanted to post this to show that not all pilots in WWII loved to strafe civilans (as some have asserted):

From the wartime Journals of Charles Lindbergh:

Strafing on New Ireland 1944:

We circle and turn back. We are to strafe on the way home. The first dive is started a plantation is the target. I hope there are no natives in that hut. "Shoot anyway, the natives are unfriendly,. Japanese have taken over the plantations."

You press the trigger and death leaps forth, tracers bury themselves in walls and roof. Inside may be writhing agony or silence. You may have wiped out a squad of soldiers or endanger your plane attacking a worthless hut. Or left children dying and wounded behind you.

That€s the trouble with the air war you don't know what you are shooting at. The hut may be empty, it may be full of Japanese soldiers. It may be a cover for a machine gun. It hold a mother and child. Everything is a target. "The area is undimmed, everything is target, All natives are unfriendly, Japanese have taken over the plantations"

MEGILE
08-20-2006, 10:30 AM
That is pretty moving stuff.

joeap
08-20-2006, 11:05 AM
What should they have done? Ok not strafe a civilian standing outside...but what's the difference between that and artillery? What if there were soldiers held up in front of a villiage by machine gun fire?? What to do?

BfHeFwMe
08-20-2006, 11:11 AM
Considering Lindberg himself was a civilian, and wasn't even suppose to be on combat missions, he couldn't have hated it that much. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

No one was forcing him to do it, unlike the 'military' pilots who had no choice.

rcocean
08-20-2006, 11:29 AM
Funny, that Lindberg was against USA getting into the war. Yet, when we were attacked he helped out anyway he could, including flying combat missions. Meanwhile, most of the bloodthirsty "interventionist" got safe jobs or never joined at all.

There were a lot of "ChickenHawks" in the 1940s but you never read about them.

rcocean
08-20-2006, 11:31 AM
Originally posted by joeap:
What should they have done? Ok not strafe a civilian standing outside...but what's the difference between that and artillery? What if there were soldiers held up in front of a villiage by machine gun fire?? What to do?

Acutally, according to Lindberg, any man on New Ireland was considered unfriendly and fair game to be strafed.

Enforcer572005
08-20-2006, 11:36 AM
There were alot MORE interventionists however that DID back up what they said. Many joined the RAF or the AVG, or other allied units fighting in the war before we got there (though the AVG didnt actually see combat till the day after pearl). Plenty of guys put themselves on the line that knew why we HAD to get in that war.

Lindberg was in the Pacific to teach methods to P-38 pilots for getting range outta their planes, and he had been an isolationist and an apologist for the Nazis before the war (amazing how history repeats itself). He was NOT a pacificst however, and most isolationists realized their mistake on 12-7-41.

"Bloodthirsty Interventionists" existed on in the minds of the simple minded pacifists (and too many isolationists) whose resistance to preparing for war cost so many lives.

None of those guys loved straffing civies. ONe realistic feature of this sim is the difficulty of target id on the ground. And nobody deliberately targeted "children" on the ground either. War made life very dangerous in the front line countries. Still does.

CHDT
08-20-2006, 11:49 AM
"Bloodthirsty Interventionists" existed on in the minds of the simple minded pacifists (and too many isolationists) whose resistance to preparing for war cost so many lives."

Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle?

rcocean
08-20-2006, 12:08 PM
Originally posted by Enforcer572005:
There were alot MORE interventionists however that DID back up what they said. Many joined the RAF or the AVG, or other allied units fighting in the war before we got there (though the AVG didnt actually see combat till the day after pearl). Plenty of guys put themselves on the line that knew why we HAD to get in that war.

Come now. How many big time intervionists or their kids joined the RCAF or the AFG. I can't think of one. Any how many USA citizens were in the the AFG or the RCAF, or the eagles squadron 200? 500? Out of what 140 million Americans?

The biggest chickenhawk of all time was FDR. There was no bigger hawk in 1914-1918 then FDR - except for his cousin Teddy Roosevelt. The difference is that FDR never served, while Teddy his 4 sons to battle on the western front, ( 1 killed flying, 3 WIA). Teddy in fact went to Wilson and begged to go to France -at age 59!



None of those guys loved straffing civies. ONe realistic feature of this sim is the difficulty of target id on the ground. And nobody deliberately targeted "children" on the ground either. War made life very dangerous in the front line countries. Still does.

For the most part I agree. But it doesn't obviate the fact that *some* fighter pilots -in all countries - loved to shoot up anything that moved.

Waldo.Pepper
08-20-2006, 01:24 PM
But it doesn't obviate the fact that *some* fighter pilots -in all countries - loved to shoot up anything that moved.

It was a different time. Trying to impose our contemporary morals on the people of the 1940's is futile

Go and watch Thunderbolt on google video.

"Someone standing in that field... Wonder who is is? Oh well, he's no friend of mine." RAT A TAT TAT!

I often wonder why we try to impose our contemporary morals on WW2. We never (ok - rarely) seem to do that to any other conflict. Many civilians were harmed during the Peloponysian wars as well you know (Oh that's awful, isn't it! Those damn barbarians!)

berg417448
08-20-2006, 01:42 PM
Occasionally, though, you get an individual who seems to enjoy it. Perhaps it is the type of person who, in other circumstances than fighting a war, would be inside a prison cell:


€œOthers were caught out on the road. As civilians ran from the town, they were joined by deserting Basque soldiers, hoping that the German pilots would spare them. They were wrong: a squadron of six Messerschmidt 109's came roaring in low and strafed everyone on the ground with cannon fire. Bodies of dead civilians and soldiers choked the road. €œWe used tracer to walk the rounds in,€ said one exultant German pilot later. €œWe shot up anything that moved. It was wonderful sport!€ This was modern warfare without valour or chivalry.€

http://www.observergroup.net/ob112back/stories.htm

WWMaxGunz
08-20-2006, 01:53 PM
Lindberg had no trouble with Nazi actions even in 1941. Worry about strafing but what the
heck, leave Adolph alone!

FDR knew the trouble coming while Wilke lead the clueless party to keep people's heads in the
sand while certain people and corporations made very good profits helping to arm Germany.

And early on a group of leading physicists got Albert Einstein to convince FDR about certain
developments already made in Germany.

Head in the sand, or other dark place is the perfect posture to get a nuke shoved up with it.

So FDR had a freaking choice? Not really. He just wasn't politically prudent till 12/7/41.

Funny how the same labor and infrastructure that built the dams and roads also made possible
the mass production of aluminum and many other materials and products which were crucial to
the winning of WWII and yet since the 90's I've heard a lot of speeches about what a waste
those depression-era programs were. Repeat it enough given the education cuts and it will
become the new truth if it already hasn't.

We haven't been isolationists since 1941. Quite the opposite and more every decade.

rcocean
08-20-2006, 02:22 PM
Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
Lindberg had no trouble with Nazi actions even in 1941. Worry about strafing but what the
heck, leave Adolph alone!

FDR knew the trouble coming while Wilke lead the clueless party to keep people's heads in the
sand while certain people and corporations made very good profits helping to arm Germany.

And early on a group of leading physicists got Albert Einstein to convince FDR about certain
developments already made in Germany.

Head in the sand, or other dark place is the perfect posture to get a nuke shoved up with it.

So FDR had a freaking choice? Not really. He just wasn't politically prudent till 12/7/41.



I think you're misreading Lindberg and history. Lindberg was not a facist or pacifist. Niether were the American people; 80% of whom were against getting into the war.

Lindberg, unlike FDR, didn't think Stalin was "Uncle Joe" or that if we killed off Hitler all of Europe's troubles would be solved. As a result, he saw no reason for us to get involved. And frankly, he was right. Only the A-bomb; (which no one forsaw in 1941) saved us from WW III which would happened in the late 1940s.

Have ever heard of the Morgenthau plan? For sure criminality & stupidity its hard to beat, and was endorsed by FDR.

Fortunely, God looks out for drunks and Uncle Sam and it all ended up - 60 years later - more or less OK.

Aaron_GT
08-20-2006, 02:39 PM
The biggest chickenhawk of all time was FDR. There was no bigger hawk in 1914-1918 then FDR - except for his cousin Teddy Roosevelt.

To be pedantic, 4th counsin once removed.


The difference is that FDR never served, while Teddy his 4 sons to battle on the western front,


FDR DID serve during WW1, as Assistant Secretary to the Navy, from 1913-20. When the USA entered the war in 1917 he had been doing the job for several years, and it would have been counterproductive to put him into active service. His skills and experience by this point were better employed in administration.

His son James was in the Marine Second Raider Battalion, winning the Navy Cross and Silver Star in combat.

FDR Jr. served in the Navy in WW2, and was decorated for bravery.

His son Elliot flew P-38s for the USAAF in North Africa, and recon over Normandy.

His son John also served in the Navy.

So.. also four sons, and four served.

BfHeFwMe
08-20-2006, 08:32 PM
Er, you do know FDR couldn't even walk from early childhood. He was a polio victom, how exactly did you wish him to go serve?

With his disability and the severe side effects of stress encoured on his body, in the office of the President, it ultimatly cost him his life. I'd say in that capacity he served plenty well while the chips were down and victory uncertain. I'd also bet were the men of that era who did serve under him still young and around in numbers, your nose would be rather swollen with those silly chickenhawk notions. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif

Ob.Emann
08-20-2006, 09:02 PM
Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
So FDR had a freaking choice? Not really. He just wasn't politically prudent till 12/7/41.


I would argue that he wasn't even politically prudent AFTER 12/7/41. Surely starting an unquestioning buddy-buddy relationship with a merciless tyrant (y'know, the one besides Hitler-that mustachioed Georgian) whilst preaching that your nation is fighting to end the world of all tyranny is not the most honest policy one would expect from a leader.

It was because of FDR's naivete that postwar Europe, or half of it, would get to live under a NEW totalitarian regime, but this one would last for *50* years. What an improvement.

Just my thoughts. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

rcocean
08-20-2006, 09:03 PM
Originally posted by BfHeFwMe:
Er, you do know FDR couldn't even walk from early childhood. He was a polio victom, how exactly did you wish him to go serve?

Actually, FDR got Polio in 1920; when he was 36.
He was extemely healthy before then.


With his disability and the severe side effects of stress encoured on his body, in the office of the President, it ultimatly cost him his life. I'd say in that capacity he served plenty well while the chips were down and victory uncertain. I'd also bet were the men of that era who did serve under him still young and around in numbers, your nose would be rather swollen with those silly chickenhawk notions. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif

I'm only asseting he was a chichkenhawk in WWI not WWI. TR and his family never forgave FDR for staying in DC, safe and sound, while TR's boy died and bled on the Western Front in 1918.

Von_Rat
08-21-2006, 04:30 AM
so fdr would of been, what, 33 years old in 1917. isnt that a little old to start a combat carrer. if he was going to be a desk jockey he might as well stayed where he was. teddy voluteered at 59 to go, but he was a experianced soldier and outdoorsman. they turned him down amyway.

i find it hard to beleive anybody cares what their 4th cousin once removed does, even if he's sec of navy.

rcocean
08-21-2006, 08:07 AM
Originally posted by Von_Rat:
so fdr would of been, what, 33 years old in 1917. isnt that a little old to start a combat carrer. if he was going to be a desk jockey he might as well stayed where he was. teddy voluteered at 59 to go, but he was a experianced soldier and outdoorsman. they turned him down amyway.

i find it hard to beleive anybody cares what their 4th cousin once removed does, even if he's sec of navy.

I don't understand the 4th cousin thing, since I'm not big on that sort of thing. But, FDR's father was the brother of TR's father. So, thats makes them about as close as cousins can be. Secondly, FDR was elected to office because he was a Roosevelt, and TR attended his wedding, and socialized with him. Third, TR quit the office of Secretary of the Navy at age 40; to charge up San Juan Hill. TR jr. was only 4 years younger than FDR was twice wounded on the western front. Stimson, who later became Secretary of War under FDR, quit a lucrative Wall Street Job at age 50, to go fight.

So, yes FDR really was a "chickenhawk". Its one of the reason TR's kids, epescially Alice Longworth, disliked him till the day they died.

RCAF_Irish_403
08-21-2006, 08:26 AM
I'm not sure where all the anti FDR stuff is coming from....what part of "He helped save Western Civilization" do you not understand?

elgranchaco
08-21-2006, 08:50 AM
Originally posted by rcocean:
Funny, that Lindberg was against USA getting into the war.

not that funny. he didnt want us to go to war because he was a nazi supporter.

...and i'm sure if he there were jews in the hut, he probably would have had no qualms strafing it.

berg417448
08-21-2006, 08:55 AM
http://www.charleslindbergh.com/americanfirst/index.asp

Chuck_Older
08-21-2006, 09:19 AM
I'm reading a lot of fantasy in this thread.

As usual, Aaron (and a few other voices) keeps fact near the spotlight

rcocean
08-21-2006, 09:30 AM
Originally posted by elgranchaco:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by rcocean:
Funny, that Lindberg was against USA getting into the war.

not that funny. he didnt want us to go to war because he was a nazi supporter.

...and i'm sure if he there were jews in the hut, he probably would have had no qualms strafing it. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


You have any quotes from Lindberg to back that up?

rcocean
08-21-2006, 09:32 AM
Originally posted by berg417448:
http://www.charleslindbergh.com/americanfirst/index.asp

Thanks for the link. As a history buff, I will definitely enjoy it.

rcocean
08-21-2006, 09:34 AM
Originally posted by Chuck_Older:
I'm reading a lot of fantasy in this thread.

As usual, Aaron (and a few other voices) keeps fact near the spotlight

Care to elaborate?

Enforcer572005
08-21-2006, 09:37 AM
While I'm aware of FDR's many faults (socialist tendancies and trashing Japanese Americans' constitutional rights for political gain), He was an excellent wartime president, and he saw that the US would be involved eventually; he just couldnt be too blatant about it.

To call him a chicken hawk may be a bit oversimplistic. To say that an absence of combat service disqualifies one from advocating military action (when the fate of the very world is at stake) is not realistic and only provides an excuse for oponents of said action to distract from the issues at hand.

If Charles Manson yells at me not to cross the street because a bus is coming, I'm gonna pay attention, but using this chickenhawk logic, I'm suppose to ignore the warning and step in front of the bus. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_confused.gif

And Emman, your'e right about FDR's inattention to Stalin, but keep in mind that the enemy of my enemy is my friend (Sun Zsu said that I think). Where FDR really messed up with Stalin is compromising too much with him about post war Europe despite Churchill's warnings.

The fact that 80% of the American Public opposed involvement in WW2 before Pearl H. shows just how naieve and uninformed they were.

To say that intervention WAS NOT needed or justitfied is one of the most incredible revisionist statements ive ever seen on any forum. And I say that with all due respect, but that's like saying the moon is made of cheese.

We had to get in that fight; Tojo just provided a badly needed stimulus that opened people's eyes like no other time in history (though I dont think it would have the same effect today). Like a monster hiding in his human suit that is finally revealed for what he is, people realized how absolutely wrong and self destructive it had been to oppose military action to help the Brits and Chinese.

Chuck_Older
08-21-2006, 09:45 AM
Originally posted by rcocean:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Chuck_Older:
I'm reading a lot of fantasy in this thread.

As usual, Aaron (and a few other voices) keeps fact near the spotlight

Care to elaborate? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Why? Have I suddenly become shy?

rcocean
08-21-2006, 10:12 AM
Originally posted by Enforcer572005:
While I'm aware of FDR's many faults (socialist tendancies and trashing Japanese Americans' constitutional rights for political gain), He was an excellent wartime president, and he saw that the US would be involved eventually; he just couldnt be too blatant about it.

Well, I would love to take issue with thatin detail - but some other time. I think FDR was a terrible wartime leader, good on style, terrible on substance.



The fact that 80% of the American Public opposed involvement in WW2 before Pearl H. shows just how naieve and uninformed they were.

[quote] To say that intervention WAS NOT needed or justitfied is one of the most incredible revisionist statements ive ever seen on any forum. And I say that with all due respect, but that's like saying the moon is made of cheese.


Actually, the US population was not naive. If you have time, go back and read the Gallup polls. People weren't willing to sit back and let Hitler take over England, but they also didn't want to go on another "crusade to make the world safe for democracy". Just like some wanted to contain Sadaam Hussain rather than take him out. And the US people were not willing to sell out China, either, which is why we had the embargo and eventually Pearl Harbor.

That also was Lindberg's opinion, i.e. contain Hiter. And there's no reason why we (UK and USA) could not have contained Hiter, just as we contained Stalin.

Obviously, 60 years later, I'm glad we killed off Nazi Germany, but then I wasn't born then, and I didn't have to risk my life or lose any family members in the effort.

RCAF_Irish_403
08-21-2006, 10:42 AM
Actually, I'm thinking that Roosevelt was our most successful wartime president of the 20th century

Let's look at the record

Mexico Intervention (1916-1917): Woodrow Wilson sends an expedition into Mexico to punish Pancho Villa for shooting up several Texas border towns. Villa gets away scott free

WW I (US involvement 1917-1918): Wilson sends the Doughboys to France to "Make the World Safe for Democracy"....Europe instead slides into political extremism (Fascism, Communism, Militarism) setting the stage for WW II. Congress refuses to join the League of Nations effectively killing it in it's infancy.

WW II (US involvement 1941-1945): US goes to war in Asia and Europe to help liberate millions. FDR's plan includes re-defining the planet's dominant economic system from closed market Imperialism towards Free Market Liberal economics and setting up various international organizations (both economic and political) that would make it very hard for a WW III to break out. The war ends in Total Victory for the Allies

Korea (1950-1953): Truman sends US troops (under UN command) to Korea to punish North Koreas agression and to "roll back" communism on the peninsula. The war ends in stalemate. To this day, North Korea thumbs it's nose at the rest of the world and 50,000 US troops remain on the DMZ seperating the two Koreas

Vietnam (US involvement 1954-1975): Ike, JFK, LBJ and Nixon try to figure out how to stop the spread of communism into SE Asia. It didn't turn out that hot

Gulf I (1991): Bush '41 make the world safe for continued oil dependency. At the end of the conflict, the USA urges Iraqi Kurds and ****e Muslims to revolt against the Sunni dominated Baathist regime of Hussein. The ****es and Kurds are slaughtered as Allied forces twiddle their thumbs

*Edit* that's S*h*i*t*e Muslims

Deadmeat313
08-21-2006, 11:12 AM
Or do you possibly mean S*h*i*i*t*e Muslims?

Note the extra "i". http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

T.

general_kalle
08-21-2006, 11:16 AM
mecanic to fighter ace

mecanic: sir. have u never had moralic problems?

pilot: me? Indeed this plane polutes relly much

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

DuxCorvan
08-21-2006, 11:32 AM
Well, to call 'socialist tendencies' his fondness of democratic social state and Keynesian economics (New Deal) which took out US from the 1929 disaster -where old-style 'laissez-faire' capitalism had led it- is a bit exagerate, and, in fact, people would be still volutarily flying out of windows in 1941 if not for him.

As a non-US citizen, I must say that FDR is probably one of the most admired US figures during those years, he's viewed as a man who knew how to conjugate the interests of his country with the interests of the whole democratic world, and if not perfect -nobody is- he looks at least a honest, compromised man.

I don't understand why Americans feel so bad about him, I guess you'll know better. But even so, I wonder who else could have made a better job right then.

Aaron_GT
08-21-2006, 11:33 AM
I don't understand the 4th cousin thing, since I'm not big on that sort of thing. But, FDR's father was the brother of TR's father. So, thats makes them about as close as cousins can be.


The official Whitehouse biography of FDR seems not to agree with you.

The Roosevelt family was descended from a Dutch immigrant in the 1640s, Nicholas. His sons begat the line that led to FDR (on one side) and Theodore (on the other). That's how they were related. They were not first cousins.

Aaron_GT
08-21-2006, 11:48 AM
Dux, I was going to same the same.

Keynesian policies are not necessarily socialist, and FDR wasn't the last US president to use them, although he used them to a greater extent since the problem was larger. They were also used in Germany and Japan postwar.

Demerits for FDR are:

* Exceeding constitutional authority.
* Underestimating Stalin. Truman did not, although the USSR was waning by the mid 1950s as the centralised Soviet economy could not handle WW2 militarisation and the cold war in the way that the freer US economy could. In the process of WW2 politics Poland got rather hung out to dry, which is ironic given what started it off.
* (And for the British) A desire to dismantle the British Empire, which coupled with war debts laid the British economy low until the 1960s. However the British Empire was often a pretty nasty thing, and it was going to end earlier. It might have been better for Britain if it had been slightly less precipitous, though.

RCAF_Irish_403
08-21-2006, 12:02 PM
Originally posted by DuxCorvan:
Well, to call 'socialist tendencies' his fondness of democratic social state and Keynesian economics (New Deal) which took out US from the 1929 disaster -where old-style 'laissez-faire' capitalism had led it- is a bit exagerate, and, in fact, people would be still volutarily flying out of windows in 1941 if not for him.

As a non-US citizen, I must say that FDR is probably one of the most admired US figures during those years, he's viewed as a man who knew how to conjugate the interests of his country with the interests of the whole democratic world, and if not perfect -nobody is- he looks at least a honest, compromised man.

I don't understand why Americans feel so bad about him, I guess you'll know better. But even so, I wonder who else could have made a better job right then.

whenever Americans are asked to rank their favorite presidents you always end up with the same names: Washington, Lincoln, FDR, JFK, Ronald Reagan

RCAF_Irish_403
08-21-2006, 12:07 PM
Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
Dux, I was going to same the same.

Keynesian policies are not necessarily socialist, and FDR wasn't the last US president to use them, although he used them to a greater extent since the problem was larger. They were also used in Germany and Japan postwar.

Demerits for FDR are:

* Exceeding constitutional authority.
* Underestimating Stalin. Truman did not, although the USSR was waning by the mid 1950s as the centralised Soviet economy could not handle WW2 militarisation and the cold war in the way that the freer US economy could. In the process of WW2 politics Poland got rather hung out to dry, which is ironic given what started it off.
* (And for the British) A desire to dismantle the British Empire, which coupled with war debts laid the British economy low until the 1960s. However the British Empire was often a pretty nasty thing, and it was going to end earlier. It might have been better for Britain if it had been slightly less precipitous, though.

Ding Ding Ding Give Aaron a cookie!

FDR co-opted many socialist party programs (Social Security, the 40 hour work week etc) in order to save free market capitalism from the extremists who wanted to dismantle it

rcocean
08-21-2006, 12:22 PM
I don't understand why Americans feel so bad about him, I guess you'll know better. But even so, I wonder who else could have made a better job right then.

Let's List FDR's failure:

1) Failure to unite the country in a time of war (see Thomas Fleming "New Dealers War"

2) Appointment of Commmunists to high positions

3) Appeasement of Stalin.

4) Refusal to plan for the postwar world

5) Hostility to the British Empire

6) Failure to build up the US Air Corps and Navy prior to June 1940.

7) Failure to plan for the German U-boat attack in 1942. Refused Navy advise to build DE's prior to Pearl Harbor.

8) Failure to adequately provide for the defense of Pearl Harbor.

9) Policy of Unconditional Surrender

10) Endorsement of the Morgenthau plan.

11) Failure to build Aircraft Carriers instead of Battleships prior to 12-7-1941.

12) Endorses Marshall's absurd "Sledgehammer" plan.

13) Refuses to negotiate with Mussolini or Italian Military prior to July 1943.

14) Refuses to delay start of Pacific War by compromising with the Japanese. We could have delayed the start of the war by 3-6 months which would have given us time to prepare for the attack.

lrrp22
08-21-2006, 12:55 PM
Originally posted by DuxCorvan:

I don't understand why Americans feel so bad about him, I guess you'll know better. But even so, I wonder who else could have made a better job right then.

Dux,

It's really only a vocal minority that view FDR in a negative manner. Like Irish_403 said, many, many Americans count him amongst our greatest presidents.


LRRP

Chuck_Older
08-21-2006, 12:59 PM
Well in my opinion, rcocean, there€s some truth to that. However, some of your points are, after all, made with the benefit of hindsight. Still others are a popular image of FDR that portrays him as unable to deal with the fact that his ountry may soon be at war. Many people express the opinion that it wasn€t until December 7, 1941 that FDR €œwoke up€

However, that clashes with the fact that FDR was violating neutrality in 1940 against Germany, with the escort of British supplies and convoys halfway around the Atlantic, by USN warships. It also clashes with the fact that FDR€s cabinet pleaded with him in the late €˜30s to tone down his speeches in regards to Japan€s aggression in China.

A couple of your points make a good case that FDR was an incredibly inept dictator, because in my opinion, you overlook things like his cabinet and congress

Personally I see a large difference between Communists and Socialists but I know certainly that others don€t see things my way. I view FDR as a man who was in the right place at the right time. In one point in particular, I agree with your assessment that he didn€t plan for a post-war world, but I think it€s at odds with some other of your points- FDR€s social programs didn€t have to go on forever- but he never made a mechanism to stop them. Be that as it may, it would be fair to lay some blame on every other President since him, for using some of his programs as a crutch instead of making a better way to address the issues

CHDT
08-21-2006, 01:15 PM
"Have ever heard of the Morgenthau plan?"

What was prepared for Japan was also pretty scary, Operation Downfall, gas bombing of the Japanese cities:

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

Aaron_GT
08-21-2006, 01:49 PM
Ah yes, I'd forgotten temporarily about FDR's requirement for only unconditional surrender. This was perhaps most crucial in Italy. The Italian government (not Mussolini) was prepared to negotiate a surrender around 2 weeks earlier (from memory - might be out a bit) than what actually occured. This news got out to the German forces which largely disarmed the Italian army. So rather than the Italian army being an asset it was rendered useless, and the Germans had time to prepare. The 'soft underbelly' might have not turned out to be such a tough nut had the Italian army not been disarmed.

It might have been possible to end the war against Japan earlier, after the military government fell in May 1945. The USSR was not an honest broker in this regard (having an eye on Manchuria and the Kurils, and Russia still holds some of the latter), and some of what Japan wanted would have been unacceptable, so it probably had a lesser effect on the length of the war.

Aaron_GT
08-21-2006, 01:57 PM
It also clashes with the fact that FDR€s cabinet pleaded with him in the late €˜30s to tone down his speeches in regards to Japan€s aggression in China.

Indeed, the stepping up of US embargoes led to cabinet meetings in around October 1941 at which it was admitted by all, including FDR, that war with Japan was inevitable. Prior to this the US military probably wasn't ready as rearmament had only restarted in earnest, against some Congressional opposition, just over 2 years previously. However the initial attack was expected againt the Philipines, and additional forces were offered to MacArthur to deal with this threat. In the end the attack on the Philipines was not the first attack, but it certainly came.

In terms of rearmament, the USA was in the same boat as Western European nations - the Depression had hit budgest hard so rearmament was financially difficult, plus reticence about getting involved in another war. The USA had excellent natural resources and was coming out of the Depression somewhat quicker, so was in a good position to rearm, but in 1940 its equipment was still somewhat lagging. By 1942, though, the new equipment planned from the mid 1930s (e.g. M1 rifle and helmet), and modified in the light of the experience of Britain (e.g. P40), was ready.

RCAF_Irish_403
08-21-2006, 02:10 PM
Originally posted by rcocean:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> I don't understand why Americans feel so bad about him, I guess you'll know better. But even so, I wonder who else could have made a better job right then.

Let's List FDR's failure:

1) Failure to unite the country in a time of war (see Thomas Fleming "New Dealers War"

2) Appointment of Commmunists to high positions

3) Appeasement of Stalin.

4) Refusal to plan for the postwar world

5) Hostility to the British Empire

6) Failure to build up the US Air Corps and Navy prior to June 1940.

7) Failure to plan for the German U-boat attack in 1942. Refused Navy advise to build DE's prior to Pearl Harbor.

8) Failure to adequately provide for the defense of Pearl Harbor.

9) Policy of Unconditional Surrender

10) Endorsement of the Morgenthau plan.

11) Failure to build Aircraft Carriers instead of Battleships prior to 12-7-1941.

12) Endorses Marshall's absurd "Sledgehammer" plan.

13) Refuses to negotiate with Mussolini or Italian Military prior to July 1943.

14) Refuses to delay start of Pacific War by compromising with the Japanese. We could have delayed the start of the war by 3-6 months which would have given us time to prepare for the attack. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ok, i can refute these points

1.Galup polling data from the Second World War (http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/data/popularity.php)

2. Can you name anyone, or is this more Red Scare BS?

3. Face it...we needed Soviet Russia more than they needed us. The biggest fear regarding the Soviets would be that they cut a seperate peace deal with the Nazis forcing the US/UK to take on the whole German Army by themselves. It's debatable whether the US public would stomache the obscene casualties that would result.

4. So the creation of the UN, the IMF and the World Bank represent a failure to plan for the post-war world? These institutions (more or less) ensured that the US would become the global economic/military superpowerof the planet

5. The British Empire was bankrupt before the war. Doing away with French and British Imperialism opened new markets for US products to export. Plus, it would have been impossible to ask Americans to die to preserve the British Empire. I wouldn't...would you?

6. Congress (choke full of isolationist Republicans) held the purse strings in regards to military spending. FDR barely got Congress to pass the "Two Ocean Navy" bill which (as the name suggests) authorized a massive Naval buildup in response to the early Axis victories. It increased the size of the Navy by 70% (http://www.ibiblio.org/pha/USN/77-2s202.html) As for AC production, the US produced 7 times more AC in 1941 than in 1940 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_aircraft_production_during_World_War _II) The United States never fielded a large peacetime military until the Second World War.

7. Hindsight=20/20. Correct me if i'm wrong, but i believe that the worst of the U-Boat campaign came as the US/UK were marshalling their naval forces for TORCH

8. Read At Dawn We Slept. The Navy was worried about IJN submarine attacks. The Army was worried about sabotage. Nobody knew that the Japanese had developed a new air-launched torpedo able to be used in the shallow waters of Pearl Harbor. Bummer for the Pacific Fleet, however, that's what happened. BTW, the largest concentration of American military power was, in fact, at Pearl Harbor. This was a force to be reckoned with...that's why the Japanese struck there.

9. Part of the reason we ended up with WW2 was because a large chunk of Germany believed "The Big Lie" (ie: Germany wasn't defeated on the battlefield during WW1...instead it was the Jews, Socialists and Democrats who stabbed Germany in the back and forced her capitulation in November 1918). The Allies didn't want a replay of that-hence "Unconditional Surrender". This time Germany would know it had been beaten.

10. Okay...you've got me on the Morgenthau Plan....I'm going to have to look that up http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

11. Up until Pearl Harbor, it was assumed that the BB was still master of the seas. Once More: Hindsight=20/20

12. SLEDGEHAMMER was a contingency plan...it was never implemented and was to be used in the worst case scenario (USSR Surrenders to Nazis)

13. See #9

14. We were still negotiating with the Japanese on 12/7/41. The Japanese were hell bent on war. Sometimes you can't controll everything

rcocean
08-21-2006, 02:42 PM
Ok, i can refute these points

1.Galup polling data from the Second World War (http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/data/popularity.php)

2. Can you name anyone, or is this more Red Scare BS?

RCAF_Irish_403, I have to go to work so on all points except No. 2; I'll just say excellent job http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/touche.gifpass without rebuttal

rcocean
08-21-2006, 02:55 PM
Originally posted by rcocean:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Ok, i can refute these points

1.Galup polling data from the Second World War (http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/data/popularity.php)

2. Can you name anyone, or is this more Red Scare BS?

RCAF_Irish_403, I have to go to work so on all points except No. 2; I'll just say excellent job http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/touche.gifpass without rebuttal </div></BLOCKQUOTE>.

On Point 2 appointing communists, FDR was told on several occasions by William Bullitt, and Hoover that many of his top officials were communists and FDR basically said "so what". The communists were:

1) H.D. White - Asst. Secretary of Treasury
2) Hiss - Asst. Secretary of State
3) L. Currie - Top white house Aid
4) Numerous other spies involved in Manhatten project, OSS, and Army Signal Intelligence
5) Harry Hopkins - Venona transcript revel Hopkins was passing information on the NKVD agents at various time during the war. However, its unclear what and why this was done.

rcocean
08-21-2006, 02:57 PM
Ok, i can refute these points

1.Galup polling data from the Second World War (http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/data/popularity.php)

2. Can you name anyone, or is this more Red Scare BS?

RCAF_Irish_403, I have to go to work so on all points except No. 2; I'll just say excellent job http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/touche.gifpass without rebuttal.

On Point 2 appointing communists, FDR was told on several occasions by William Bullitt, and Hoover that many of his top officials were communists and FDR basically said "so what". The communists were:

1) H.D. White - Asst. Secretary of Treasury
2) Hiss - Asst. Secretary of State
3) L. Currie - Top white house Aid
4) Numerous other spies involved in Manhatten project, OSS, and Army Signal Intelligence
5) Harry Hopkins - Venona transcript revel Hopkins was passing information on the NKVD agents at various time during the war. However, its unclear what and why this was done.

RCAF_Irish_403
08-21-2006, 03:00 PM
Originally posted by rcocean:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Ok, i can refute these points

1.Galup polling data from the Second World War (http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/data/popularity.php)

2. Can you name anyone, or is this more Red Scare BS?

RCAF_Irish_403, I have to go to work so on all points except No. 2; I'll just say excellent job http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/touche.gifpass without rebuttal </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You are right....my second point is billigerent. accept my appologies (and my awful spelling!)

It just smacked of Red-Baiting-Not-Unlike-That-Drunk-Senator-From-Wisconsin-In-The-1950's-Thing....i misinterpreted you

DuxCorvan
08-21-2006, 05:44 PM
Well, I've seen an extense list of FDR's failures, and while conceding some of them, I feel that:

- I know no country to be completely 'united in times of war' in History, and to get so -if ever possible- is beyond any ruler capabilities.

- Most of those 'failures' were easily avoidable... had FDR been a clairvoyant or had he a time machine. We use to judge harshly decisions once taken in uncertainty.

- I doubt real 'communists' to ever have so much power in the USA, unless you see it from a bit paranoid 'McCarthian' POV. I suspect many Americans have never met or known a real, convinced communist. I know a few, and they're not the kind of liking Keynes or FDR, even less in those times, when communism and stalinism had a huge radical nature.

Those guys appointed above -except P. Manhattan spies- were probably just moderate center, near-socialist guys, only no doubt 'communists' in the paranoid spirit of early Cold War.

Von_Rat
08-21-2006, 09:53 PM
Originally posted by rcocean:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Von_Rat:
so fdr would of been, what, 33 years old in 1917. isnt that a little old to start a combat carrer. if he was going to be a desk jockey he might as well stayed where he was. teddy voluteered at 59 to go, but he was a experianced soldier and outdoorsman. they turned him down amyway.

i find it hard to beleive anybody cares what their 4th cousin once removed does, even if he's sec of navy.

I don't understand the 4th cousin thing, since I'm not big on that sort of thing. But, FDR's father was the brother of TR's father. So, thats makes them about as close as cousins can be. Secondly, FDR was elected to office because he was a Roosevelt, and TR attended his wedding, and socialized with him. Third, TR quit the office of Secretary of the Navy at age 40; to charge up San Juan Hill. TR jr. was only 4 years younger than FDR was twice wounded on the western front. Stimson, who later became Secretary of War under FDR, quit a lucrative Wall Street Job at age 50, to go fight.

So, yes FDR really was a "chickenhawk". Its one of the reason TR's kids, epescially Alice Longworth, disliked him till the day they died. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

what you discrbe would make them 1st cousins. i don't think so.

teddy was a noted outdoors man even at 40, fdr was not, ever. the spanish war was a vacation compared to ww1.

as far as fdrs son being 4 years younger, 4 years make a big differance at that age, if youve never been the outdoor type.

did stimson see combar, and was he already a ex soldier.

Von_Rat
08-21-2006, 10:05 PM
The fact that 80% of the American Public opposed involvement in WW2 before Pearl H. shows just how naieve and uninformed they were.


actually i think it shows great intelligence, if short sightness on their part. they were tired of pulling europes chestnuts outta the fire. they had alot of sons etc, die for nothing in ww1 because britain and france insisted on a punitive peace treaty. not to mention defaulting on war loans. i cant blame them for saying the hell with it, let them kill each other.


as for the rest of your post, i agree.

Von_Rat
08-21-2006, 10:29 PM
Originally posted by rcocean:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> I don't understand why Americans feel so bad about him, I guess you'll know better. But even so, I wonder who else could have made a better job right then.

Let's List FDR's failure:

1) Failure to unite the country in a time of war (see Thomas Fleming "New Dealers War"

2) Appointment of Commmunists to high positions

3) Appeasement of Stalin.

4) Refusal to plan for the postwar world

5) Hostility to the British Empire

6) Failure to build up the US Air Corps and Navy prior to June 1940.

7) Failure to plan for the German U-boat attack in 1942. Refused Navy advise to build DE's prior to Pearl Harbor.

8) Failure to adequately provide for the defense of Pearl Harbor.

9) Policy of Unconditional Surrender

10) Endorsement of the Morgenthau plan.

11) Failure to build Aircraft Carriers instead of Battleships prior to 12-7-1941.

12) Endorses Marshall's absurd "Sledgehammer" plan.

13) Refuses to negotiate with Mussolini or Italian Military prior to July 1943.

14) Refuses to delay start of Pacific War by compromising with the Japanese. We could have delayed the start of the war by 3-6 months which would have given us time to prepare for the attack. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

1. what country is fully united, at anytime.

2. mcarthyism we could do without.

3.yeah piss off the guy doing 80% of the fighting.

4. oh he had plans, but his stlye was to spring them on people when he thought time was right, but he died suddenly.

5.hard to support freedom and a imperial empire that was supposed to be democratic too,unlike russia. so he was hostile, but not anymore hostile than to stalin.

6. congress had to vote funds, he wasnt a dictator.

7.same.

8. thats was armed forces job.

9. i doubt it really made a differance, it wasnt like hitler would ever quit.



10. henry was a friend, he was humoring him and others. the plan was never going to be, and wasnt implemented.

11. same as 6.

12. same as 8.

13.i wasnt arware of any SERIOUS attempts by the itailians before mussolinis fall.

14. how was he to know that by not compromising, they would attack. appeasement was already a dirty word in 41.

Akronnick
08-21-2006, 11:43 PM
All throughout history, the mistakes and shortcomings of one genaration set up the conflicts of the next generation.

Examples:

American Revolution: The failure of Washington, Adams, Franklin, Hamilton, et. al. to settle the queston of Slavery led to the American Civil War.

French Revolution: The chaos of the French Revolution resulted in the rise of Napoleon, to the detriment of the entire Continent.

American Civil War: The abandonment of reconstruction in the late 1870's results in nearly a century of racism and segregation, the effects of which can still be felt today.

World War One: The Draconian terms of the Treaty of Versailles led to the rise of the Nazis hence WWII.

World War Two: The Cold War is just the most visible result of the aftermath of WWII. In many ways, questions raised during this period are still unresolved; e.g. The Arab-Isreali conflict is a result of unsettled issues arising from the withdrawal of European colonial powers from the Middle-East.

My point is, there has NEVER been a conflict that has successfully resolved all issues between Nations for all times. In many ways, War is the ultimate Hydra, (The monster from Greek Mythology, not the microscopic organism.)
Kill one head and two more spring forth to take its place. I the same way, what seems like a victory, leads to problems and resentments that cause another war, or two, or ten.

Is it fair to lay all of the shortcomings of the outcome of WWII at Roosevelt's feet? Of course not, but at the same time, he wasn't perfect, he was short-sighted, Machiavellian, and probably too lenient vis-a-vis Stalin; In short he was Human, and because he was Human he was mortal. He died at probably the worst possible time, except maybe December 1941.

It's real easy to sit at a computer screen sixty-five years later and say they should have done this, or what would things have been like if they had done that. The reason it's easy is noone can go back and tinker with the timeline and see how things "might have been." If we could, we'd probably see a thousand other bad things that would have happened that nobody expected.

I'm sorry, I didn't mean to preach.

Just something to think about when your examining the shortcomings, or even praising the achievments of Historical figures.

Kurfurst__
08-22-2006, 05:18 AM
Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
FDR knew the trouble coming

Same can be said about McCarthy, Churchill and all hawk types. Is it really a wonder that if you are constantly warmongering for 40 years?

Even bad watches show the accurate time twice in a day.

ned7777
08-22-2006, 07:27 AM
am astounded at the stupidity of soem people here. you are angry that he did not fight he was way to old for ww1 and rosevelt had polio for gods sakes.
not only that but you say that he just got in because he was teddy rosevelts cousin. this man made social security, most of the highways and countless dams to lift the united states out of the great depression. you bastrads

Enforcer572005
08-22-2006, 07:34 AM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

WOLFMondo
08-22-2006, 07:40 AM
2) Appointment of Commmunists to high positions

Someone with socialist tendencies is no more a communist than someone with nationalistic tendencies is a Nazi.

berg417448
08-22-2006, 08:09 AM
Originally posted by WOLFMondo:
2) Appointment of Commmunists to high positions

Someone with socialist tendencies is no more a communist than someone with nationalistic tendencies is a Nazi.

He's not speaking about people with socialist tendencies. He's speaking about people who were agents for the Soviet government:

"Among the most important agents gathering political intelligence recruited during this time period were Laurence Duggan and Michael Straight, who passed classified State Department documents, Harry Dexter White, who performed a similar role in the Treasury Department, and Lauchlin Currie, an economic adviser to Roosevelt. A notorious spy ring, the Silvermaster group run by Greg Silvermaster, also operated at this time, though it was somewhat detached from the KGB itself. The KGB thus succeeded in penetrating major branches of the United States government at a time when the US had no significant countervailing espionage operations in the Soviet Union. When Whittaker Chambers, a former courier for Hiss and others, approached Roosevelt with information fingering Duggan, White, and others as Soviet spies, his claims were dismissed as nonsense."

KGB archives have provided a wealth of infomation on this subject for historians to study.

rcocean
08-22-2006, 08:10 AM
Originally posted by Akronnick:
All throughout history, the mistakes and shortcomings of one genaration set up the conflicts of the next generation.

Examples:

American Revolution: The failure of Washington, Adams, Franklin, Hamilton, et. al. to settle the queston of Slavery led to the American Civil War.

French Revolution: The chaos of the French Revolution resulted in the rise of Napoleon, to the detriment of the entire Continent.

American Civil War: The abandonment of reconstruction in the late 1870's results in nearly a century of racism and segregation, the effects of which can still be felt today.

World War One: The Draconian terms of the Treaty of Versailles led to the rise of the Nazis hence WWII.

World War Two: The Cold War is just the most visible result of the aftermath of WWII. In many ways, questions raised during this period are still unresolved; e.g. The Arab-Isreali conflict is a result of unsettled issues arising from the withdrawal of European colonial powers from the Middle-East.

My point is, there has NEVER been a conflict that has successfully resolved all issues between Nations for all times. In many ways, War is the ultimate Hydra, (The monster from Greek Mythology, not the microscopic organism.)
Kill one head and two more spring forth to take its place. I the same way, what seems like a victory, leads to problems and resentments that cause another war, or two, or ten.

Is it fair to lay all of the shortcomings of the outcome of WWII at Roosevelt's feet? Of course not, but at the same time, he wasn't perfect, he was short-sighted, Machiavellian, and probably too lenient vis-a-vis Stalin; In short he was Human, and because he was Human he was mortal. He died at probably the worst possible time, except maybe December 1941.

It's real easy to sit at a computer screen sixty-five years later and say they should have done this, or what would things have been like if they had done that. The reason it's easy is noone can go back and tinker with the timeline and see how things "might have been." If we could, we'd probably see a thousand other bad things that would have happened that nobody expected.

I'm sorry, I didn't mean to preach.

Just something to think about when your examining the shortcomings, or even praising the achievments of Historical figures.

Excellent post. And I agree with a lot of it.

Tater-SW-
08-22-2006, 08:29 AM
It's important to note that the Communists in the FDR administration were actually Soviet agents. Not just a "political leaning." Odd that it would be OK to have such a "political leaning" even though none of us would find a Nazi "political leaning" acceptable (and Communists actually managed to murder far more people than the nazis). Communists are not treated objectively in the west, they are miraculously held seperate from their horrific history of mass murder.

The CPUSA was the creation of the Soviet Union. It existed to further the aims of Moskow. Members actively and pasively help Soviet espionage against the US. They were helping prop up the second most murderous regime in human history (the first is the People's Republic of China, the third is Nazi Germany, and every other murdering state is down in the noise by comparison). They absolutely towed the Soviet line. American commies were anti Nazi until a few days after the nonagression treaty with the CCCP, then they got their marching orders from Stalin and stopped attacking the Germans.

Bottom line is that being a communist is tantamount to being a nazi. There is no form of communism that isn't totalitarian, you can make a perfect definition of "totalitarian" with just a few of the ten planks of communism. Totalitarianism leads to democide, invariably.

tater

Von_Rat
08-22-2006, 05:17 PM
if fdr wasnt personally aware of PROOF at the time that these people were agents, whats the point.