FDR Seems "Strangely Vulnerable"

[fastpat]

FDR Seems "Strangely Vulnerable"
Posted by Thomas Woods at May 19, 2006 01:40 AM

Ted Widmer warns in the New York Times that "a recent spate of books from the right, including Jim Powell's FDR's Folly and Thomas E. Woods Jr.'s Politically Incorrect Guide to American History, have accused [FDR] of prolonging the Great Depression and generally screwing up America."

Have a look at Widmer's column. It's a bunch of idiotic platitudes backed up by nothing, and endorsing the view of the presidency shared by left-liberals and neoconservatives alike: an office whose ideal occupant doesn't simply execute the laws, but is a far-seeing demigod whose "vision" and "agenda" overawe all other sectors of society.

From Widmer:

"Roosevelt reinvented the presidency during his first hundred days in office, through bold policy innovations, brilliant speeches and broadcasts and a personal connection with the American people that has not been equaled since."

"F.D.R. embodied hope to a people consumed by despair."

"Through his words, his improvisations and his effortless optimism, Roosevelt resuscitated American capitalism, and in so doing, may have saved democracy as well."

Were it not for the fact that these inane sentences contain subjects and predicates, they could have been lifted from any freshman paper on FDR. The one "misstep" Widmer allows, by the way, is FDR's opposition to federal deposit insurance. Words fail me.

re: FDR Seems "Strangely Vulnerable"
Posted by Lew Rockwell at 10:45 AM

Tom, in The Wanderer, Joe Sobran wants to know how Franklin Roosevelt can be considered a benefactor of mankind, when--on top of all his other crimes--he introduced the atomic bomb into the world. It may yet destroy civilization. That's in my mind as FDR XII openly salivates for an excuse to use it again.

[928ram]

Ain't he the guy who to the Mexican that they could all come live here?

[Eric 951]

The smartest man in the wrold--sorry pastey I am referring to Lew Wallace here--states that FDR introduced the atomic bomb to the world and that this "may yet destroy civilization".

Such a moronic statement IMPLIES(just for you paste) that FDR is somehow a criminal for unleashing such a brutal weapon on the world stage. This also implies that had FDR not introduced the bomb used by Truman to bring the Japanese to thier knees, that NOBODY would have.

Yep, nobody else was working on this weapon, not the French, British, and certainly not the Russians.

Lew Wallace--nothin' but noise man, makes about as much sense as paste.

[nota]

no that would be the pre- neo conned who did that not FDR
" of prolonging the Great Depression and generally screwing up America."
but the neo-conned sure do hate FDR

[nostatic]

isn't FDR dead? Kinda makes him not vulnerable to much of anything...

[fastpat]

Originally posted by nota
no that would be the pre- neo conned who did that not FDR
" of prolonging the Great Depression and generally screwing up America."
but the neo-conned sure do hate FDR

What's that you say?

[fastpat]

Originally posted by nostatic
isn't FDR dead? Kinda makes him not vulnerable to much of anything...

That's ain't Buddist talk I see above.

[Moneyguy1]

It is so easy to attack the dead..they have so little to say...

Also interesting how hindsight trumps foresight, isn't it?

This is one of those occasions I was referring to, pat, in another thread. Anyone with a scintilla of technical knowledge would know that Germany, given enough time would have the A-Bomb as well as Japan. Germany was slowed down when a large shipment of heavy water was sunk off Norway. The theory was there and waiting for someone to put it into practice. You cannot put the genie back in the bottle re: nuclear energy any more than Nobel could take back his discovery of high explosives.

Read up on what the results would have been on both sides had a land invasion of Japan been necessary, both what the Allies have to say as well as the Japanese themselves.

[defcon65]

BTW, heavy water reactants are about as workable as cold fusion. Go watch more Hogan's Heroes.

[fastpat]

Originally posted by Moneyguy1
It is so easy to attack the dead..they have so little to say...

Also interesting how hindsight trumps foresight, isn't it?

Since there was plenty of opposition to FDR concurrent with his time in office, I'm comfortable tearing his undeserved reputation as a "great president" to a justly deserved tatters. There's no shortage of FDR accolytes, but until recently, there's been a shortage of truth tellers about him.

This is one of those occasions I was referring to, pat, in another thread. Anyone with a scintilla of technical knowledge would know that Germany, given enough time would have the A-Bomb as well as Japan. Germany was slowed down when a large shipment of heavy water was sunk off Norway. The theory was there and waiting for someone to put it into practice. You cannot put the genie back in the bottle re: nuclear energy any more than Nobel could take back his discovery of high explosives.

Neither country had "enough time", even if the US government had remained out of World War Two.

Read up on what the results would have been on both sides had a land invasion of Japan been necessary, both what the Allies have to say as well as the Japanese themselves.

Expected US casualties were 40,000 for the conquest of all of Japan by land invasion. That was estimated using the same method of the estimates for D-Day. Casualties on D-Day were less than half the estimates. They would have been even lower had the US "swimming tanks" made it to shore in the same percentages as the British "swimming tanks". Unfortunately, all but two of the American tanks, identical to the British ones, sank prior to reaching shore. Small things can have large consequences.

There was no need for an invasion of the Japanese mainland. Bombing raids on real military targets, when the US military wasn't firebombing civilians, had taken out huge chunks of Japan's war fighting capability. More importantly, most of those left were green troops with little combat experience. Even more important, Japan had offered surrender several times in 1945, the only sticking point being the disposition of the emperor, the Japanese insisting on his being left in his position, Truman insisting on unconditional surrender. And last, Japan, as you know, is a series of islands; that were effectively surrounded by the largest naval force on the planet. Vital resources were completely cut off, including food. since Japan did not and still does not grow enough to feed itself. Japan has no petroleum resources There was no reason to invade at all, and taking that with their offer of surrender; the nuclear weapon use was a war crime of monstrus proportions.

And the emperor was left as the Japanese had earlier demanded.

[nostatic]

Originally posted by fastpat
That's ain't Buddist talk I see above.

really? which part of it?

[Moneyguy1]

40,000 casulties for the invasion of Japan? Where did THAT come from? By definition, casulties included both deaths and wounded.

So, at Okinawa, there were 10,588 deaths and 47,219 total casulties. Deaths at Iwo Jima numbered 5,300. So Okinawa had more casulties than an invasion of the Japanese mainland would have created?

Source for: "Japan had offered surrender several times in 1945"? I think you will find that it was "Japan had refused to surrender several times in 1945". Their offers of surrender were more of a "suing for peace" and maintaining their then currend form of government and power structure. The Allies were demanding unconditional surrender.

40,000 casulties for a main island invasion is quite low. The "optimists" estimated about 37,500 deaths and five times as many wounded. The "pessimists" estimated 250,000 dead allies and 1,250,000 wounded. Japanese casulties for their military, based on the island hopping campaign, were estimated to be a minimum of five times those of the Allies. Civilian Japanese casulties were estimated in the millions.

Not withstanding the fact that the a-bomb did shorten the war and eliminate the need for a land invasion, the day after Hiroshima, Russia declared war on Japan and began to invade Manchuria, with the goal of taking part of the Japanese islands as a spoil of war. Both the Japanese and the Allies knew the outcome of that, a divided Japan and a potential communist state on the western end of Asia. Therefore, the Japanese figured that surrender and maintaining the country "in one piece" was to be preferred to having the Russians split it in two.

two sources:

www.ww2pacific.com
www.olive-drab.com

and there are a ton of others out there as well

The emperor, by the way, was left in power at the suggestion of General MacArthur as a means of maintaining order. The emperor became a puppet, a figurehead, and the transition from military to democratic society went relatively well.

[red-beard]

Originally posted by defcon65
BTW, heavy water reactants are about as workable as cold fusion. Go watch more Hogan's Heroes.

I'd consult the Canadians on that....

[Taz's Master]

Fastpat, stating that had the US not entered the war that neither Japan or Germany would have had enough time to develop nuclear weapons is pure speculation. The information you base that claim on may be good, and the prediction logical, but in the end it is still speculation.

Just like the Japanese on mainland Japan, supposedly the Germans defended Holland with old men and green kids. Had the Allies not gone in and actually been turned back, you could be speculating as to how if we had followed the British reccomendations the war would have been shortened by invading Holland. Maybe the Japanese would have rolled over without the use of atomic weapons, but then again supposedly the Union Army was going to crush the Confederacy in a matter of weeks.

Defeating Japan as we did was extremely effective. In the 60 years since they have not been a military threat. Also in the 60 years since dropping atomic bombs on Japan, nuclear weapons did much to stave off war between the US and the USSR. If you can speculate as to the light costs of a nuclear-free conclusion to WW II, what would be your estimates as to the cost of a conventional war between the NATO and Warsaw Pact countries?