Did FDR Really End the Depression?

[louis c]

The right wing, revisionist assholes are doing everything they can to explain away the "New Deal" as a failure and make WWII the reason for the American recovery. Let's look at factual history for the most logical explanation.

The 1920's brought a world-wide economic depression. What the right wing assholes fail to mention is that the economic and social collapse in other countries brought about political upheaval that lead to great national catastrophes. Germany's economic collapse brought about an elected dictator who is likened to the biblical anti-Christ, Adolf Hitler. In my beloved ancestral homeland of Italy, Mussolini took over the reigns of government. Stalin in Russia. The war lords of Japan. The Fascists in Spain. Get the point. FDR restored american confidence in their government as people went back to work. Not all, granted, at once. Howevever, unemployment went from 25% in 1932 to about 14% in 1936. The FDIC established confidence in the banking system. Roosevelt won a resounding re-election in 1936, adding to the growing confidence in the American government. The point is, while many other nations were headed for disaster, America was plowing ahead, pulling together and sustaining freedom and Democracy. In the mean time, America was retooling. Our industrial base was growing. So, when WWII struck, we had a confident nation, with faith in its government, a belief in Democracy and an industrial base that quickly supplied the allies, and then ourselves, with the material, resources and eager men and women to not only fight that war on two fronts, but to win it.

When the right-wing assholes attempt to disparage the greatest President of the Twentieth Century, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, remind them of these facts. Also, remind them that he inherited a Depression that he turned into prosperity, saved American Democracy, and won a World War during his term. Not a bad Administration, I'd say.

[Enthusiast]

1. Older Americans universally believe

FDR was responsible for saving the country from the Great Depression. I am of an age to know this. When I went to work in a factory as a young man the work force was largely made up of WWII veterans. I never heard a derisive word about FDR. If that is not enough, he also guided the country through the difficult World War II years. I have never in my life heard an older American disparage FDR. These crazy claims by the Reich Wing are an act of desperation. Their image has taken a near mortal blow. They are trying to absolve both Hoover and Bush for any responsibility in their respective depressions.

[skooooo]

30. Not universally..

I was in Costco, and one of their older employees decided to "school" me in politics as he was going through a contract and adding his political commentary and reaction to why he thought all the small print was there. According to him, well into his 60s, Roosevelt prolonged the Depression. Then he started raising the scary boogy man of SOCIALIZED MEDICINE!

OMG!

When he started into that, I started cheering, and saying YAY SOCIALIZED MEDICINE IS WHAT WE NEED!!! RIGHT ON!!!!

The guy was a real a**hole.

[Enthusiast]

54. If he was, say, 68 years old

, the Great Depression was largely over before he was born. So, as an infant, I doubt we can rely on his testimony that FDR prolonged the Great Depression. On the other hand, I collected first hand accounts from people that lived during the depression. Those people, all those I know, credit FDR.

[rolltideroll]

72. I am 6 feet, 215 pounds

I would be scared to tell my Grandmother FDR did not end the depression. Older Americans love FDR. They were there, they saw it. And they didn't have talk radio telling them this bs.

[Enthusiast]

74. True and well said Bama fan. nt

[GinaMaria]

91. yep. Even my conservative grandparents and parents would

never say anything against FDR. He was nothing but inspirational to them. (My parents were/are Goldwater conservatives). They taught me that FDR saved democracy and our way of government. We were at serious risk for revolution at that time. Great man and anyone who had family that lived in this country at that time should know that.

[Captain Hilts]

96. My right wing aunt and uncle are the same. They even own a copy of Eleanor and Franklin.

FDR's programs gave them the ability to grow into right wingers.

No greater testament to the success of the New Deal. And that includes the GI bill.

[Ladyhawk]

101. Not universally. See my below post. nt

[reggie the dog]

140. dont the elderly in the USA

already get socialized medecine? medicare or medicaid or something?

[Arugula Latte]

84. My father's family had a sarcastic saying whenever something good happened

They'd say: "That Roosevelt. Ain't he somethin'?" Their way of dissing FDR. I wish some of them were still alive so they could see that their grandchildren are strong liberal Democrats. :)

[Ladyhawk]

100. My grandfather hated FDR for taking the country off the gold standard.

His two brothers both fought in the war and he was called, but at the last minute got a deferment because he had kids.

[damonm]

198. Yeah, and the seismic activity in Missouri...

Is my late grandfather digging his way out of his grave to slap RWs upside their stupid heads.
As far as Grandpa was concerned, saying a bad word about FDR was high-order blasphemy. FDR was right up there with Jesus Christ Himself as far as Grandpa was concerned.

[louis c]

223. You seem to get my point (NT)

[izzie]

2. I sort of think like this my self.

I do believe production of 'stuff' also went up after FDR got in office. My father always felt that the country was moving along pretty well and was not a lover of wars as he said you could not build a society on things your made to blow up. He also liked the rules on the banks. No one in my family was out of work even if they were not working at what they wanted to do during the great Depressions but we came from cities that were very hard hit. Lowell, Haver hill and Brock ton Mass. We still had a Summer home and all that but it still was hard on many people. Every one had to work in our family. Even as children my father had my sister and I having a job where we made money and had to bank it and show him what we had done. In this time, Iknow my father bought a house, that a bank owned that had been built in the 1920's for a good 4 times what he paid for it. In 4 years he paid it off. So what FDR did helped many people who were working also. My adopted mother's brother's were both in the CCC and she said it was great for their family. I will add this that these families all had some education. Maybe not as much as they wished but all that they could pay for. It was the production places I think that were hurt so in the Great Depression. Mills etc.

[Almost_there]

3. Unemployment rate is not the only story..

I understand exactly what you're getting at Louis, but, there is quite a bit more to the story of the depression. The how's and why's are obviously more complicated, and don't fall into the trap of thinking that unemployment is the sole, or even major factor of a depression. I like the old chestnut "what is the difference between a recession and a depression? - A recession is when your neighbor is out of work and a depression is when you are out of work" but, don't forget GDP, the deflation, exports as a % of GDP, etc etc etc.

Deflation & GDP were crucial in the depression era, then having the dust bowl kick off in 1933 due to over farming, poor farming techniques, or just bad karma really iced the cake. There is just much more to it than the FDIC & the New Deal projects with the unions coming in to save the day.

[sendero]

4. There's a lot to the story..

... but one thing is indisputable. Had FDR NOT intervened, it would have been a lot worse. End of story.

[Zynx]

13. GDP took out its 1929 high in 1937.

[KharmaTrain]

5. Give Truman Some Props...

In many cases, the Depression didn't end until 1945-46 when the war time economy geared back into private production. This was crucial as this transition solidified the gains of the New Deal and led to over three decades of prosperity. While FDR was able to focus on the economy for the first two terms, Truman had to juggle the end of the war, the start of the Cold War and the economic challenges of integrating millions of returning GIs into a peacetime economy. He came up with the GI Bill that was as valuable as any New Deal program, the Marshall plan to begin rebuilding Europe's infrastructure and dealt with a hostile, obstructionist House and Congres.

As has been said, the FDR revisionists like to mix up dates and find little tidbits to try to claim black is white. They apply the same type of bullshit, but in reverse when they talk about Saint Raygun. While I wasn't alive during that era, my parents sure were, and FDR was a diety to them. They saw the world around them collapse in the early 30's and how the various New Deal Programs offered both hope and opportunity.

Right now the "ideology" of the right...or whatever is left of is...hangs on the shreads of revisionism as the reality points to their total ineptness and the bankruptcy of their party and ideas.

Cheers...

[ShortnFiery]

7. The GI Bill was laudable but my heart and soul tells me that Truman was cast TO HELL ...

for the nuking of Nagasaki and Hiroshima. :nuke: :nuke: :cry:

[KharmaTrain]

11. Presidencies Are Complex

One could critize FDR for not bombing the concentration camps or even Lincoln for his waiving of haebeus corpus that led to the quick execution of what surely were innocent people. There are few Presidents who haven't had their hands bloodied in one manner or another.

Now if you'd ask those of my parents generation, the bombing of Japan was a life saver. My father would have been shipped from Europe to be part of an invasion of the Japanese homelands. There were predictions that such an invasion would mean millions of casualties...as well as the on-going destruction of Japan. The bomb was the only thing to force the military government out of power. An invasion and march on Tokyo would have been far more devestating.

Cheers...

[ShortnFiery]

12. War is EVIL. You can NOT dismiss the nuking of civilians with the excuse of "complexity."

I'm sinful and will spend eons in Purgatory, but I ALSO know deep in my soul: TRUMAN went STRAIGHT TO HELL for what he unleashed on Our World. :grr:

[ShortnFiery]

14. p.s. There's a competing argument to what your parents claim that Japan was on the

brink of surrender. Furthermore, the civilians of those two cities did not deserve to be NUKED any more so than our fathers deserved to die in battle in Japan. Truman played God and he is burning in The Seventh Ring of Hell for this action. :(

[bvar22]

164. Most of the Pacific Command, including McArthur,

...believed the the nuking of Japan was unnecessary.

http://www.doug-long.com/quotes.htm

[Raskolnik]

168. The intellectual dishonesty of Doug Long's website rears its head.

The reason several Pacific commanders were against the use of nuclear weapons is because they wanted to win the war with conventional means, i.e. blockade, bombing, and invasion. There is no real question that these options would have led to far more death and destruction than the use of the two bombs, yet Mr. Long, and you, conveniently ignore that reality by use of quote-mining. Why is that?

[bvar22]

173. In your opinion.....

"There is no real question that these options would have led to far more death and destruction."

You got that one wrong.
There are REAL questions, especially from many who were THERE.

[Raskolnik]

193. Then by all means explain what conventional method of warfare would have resulted in less death

and destruction. Blockade? Strategic bombing? Invasion? What actions would have been less destructive to the people of Japan and U.S. soldiers?

[bvar22]

205. Here is only one of many.

"MacArthur biographer William Manchester has described MacArthur's reaction to the issuance by the Allies of the Potsdam Proclamation to Japan: "...the Potsdam declaration in July, demand that Japan surrender unconditionally or face 'prompt and utter destruction.' MacArthur was appalled. He knew that the Japanese would never renounce their emperor, and that without him an orderly transition to peace would be impossible anyhow, because his people would never submit to Allied occupation unless he ordered it. Ironically, when the surrender did come, it was conditional, and the condition was a continuation of the imperial reign. Had the General's advice been followed, the resort to atomic weapons at Hiroshima and Nagasaki might have been unnecessary."

William Manchester, American Caesar: Douglas MacArthur 1880-1964, pg. 512.

I tend to value the testimony of the people who were on the scene, and I tend to doubt those who were continents away composing a cover story to justify the complete destruction of two civilian cities which had zero military importance.

[Raskolnik]

220. Cutting & pasting is no substitute for actual argument, and nothing in that post suggests

a viable that would have resulted in less death and destruction.

The "Japan wanted to surrender" argument conveniently ignores the fact that *no one* with the power over Japan's armed forces was willing to surrender prior to the use of nuclear weapons. The Supreme War Council wanted to fight on to the end, and retention of the Emperor was far from Japan's only condition of armistice in the low-level feelers its dipolomats put out (and they were suggesting an armistice, NOT a surrender). Japan was not willing to give up its conquered territories, and it was not willing to remove and hold accountable its wartime leadership.

If low-level German diplomats had suggested an armistice peace feelers in the winter of '43-'44 that would have ended the war, provided that Nazi leadership remain in place and Germany retain large portions of France, Poland, Czechoslovakia, and Holland, would that have been an acceptable armistice? After all, it would have saved hundreds of thousands of civilian lives in the short run, and prevented huge amounts of destruction to German cities. Why would that have been any more or less acceptable than allowing Japan similar terms?

[Thothmes]

179. What was FDRs opinion of using the weapon that

he ordered be built. Considering he tossed the Japanese Americans in Concentration Camps, authorized the assassination of foreign officials, I suspect if he had to make the decision in July 1945, Hiroshima & Nagasaki would have still disappeared in mushroom shaped clouds.

[bvar22]

201. YOU "suspect" that Hiroshima and Nagasaki ....

And that is ALL you have....a personal speculation.

[Thothmes]

213. The man ordered the bomb built

He had no qualms about throwing 140,000 Japanese Americans in detention camps. He did not have a problem authorizing the assissination of foreign VIPs.
His policy was complete and unconditional surrender. This the Japanese were unwilling to do before the bombs dropped. In my opinion he would have had no reservations in using those weapons to end the war.

[KharmaTrain]

16. I Condemn All Wars...

But sadly, neither you nor I can either control history or the evil in men...as much as we try. I was relating the opinions my parents had about both Truman and the bomb. To me, all who commit war should be condemned to hell or wherever you send evil...but that doesn't erase what happened or the justifications people believed in at the time.

[ShortnFiery]

18. Nope, Truman unleashed the first NUKES on civilians. In my book, that makes him especially EVIL.

:shrug:

[KharmaTrain]

19. Would The Deaths Of Millions Of Japanese Been Better?

Just curious how you square this. Had the bomb not been available, there surely would have been a massive invasion of the Japanese home islands starting in Fall, 1945. Add to this the ongoing firebombing and other conventional raids on cities that would have devestated the country far worse than it was. Predictions of casualties would have been in the millions, and some expected that this war could have dragged on for years as the Japanese Imperial government would continue to resist at all costs.

I wish history were tidy. It's not. In many ways the use of those nukes created a horror that has prevented another nation-state from using such a weapon again and showed man that there are limits to ones power. Again...all perspective and used here for discussion purposes.

I'm grateful that neither McArthur or Curtis LeMay were given that decision...now I will agree both of those men were truly evil.

Cheers...

[ShortnFiery]

39. What part of NUCLEAR WAR and GENOCIDE of the human race can you not understand?

NUCLEAR :nuke: Damn! :(

[KharmaTrain]

68. So How Would You Have Ended That War?

Just packed up and went home? Go ahead with an invasion that the Japanese government was arming all their citizens for a scortched earth defense (see Okinawa)? It's simple to broadbrush history, it's another to look at all sides of it.

Cheers...

[ShortnFiery]

93. Many military scholars were of ...

the educated opinion that Japan was "badly beaten and LOOKING for a way to surrender." However, instead of giving them an opportunity to surrender - not allowing their Emperor to lose face, TRUMAN wanted to see what his pretty bombs would do.

General Eisenhower was set against this VICIOUSLY INHUMANE ACT OF OVERKILL.

http://www.doug-long.com/quotes.htm

DWIGHT EISENHOWER

"...in 1945... Secretary of War Stimson, visiting my headquarters in Germany, informed me that our government was preparing to drop an atomic bomb on Japan. I was one of those who felt that there were a number of cogent reasons to question the wisdom of such an act. ...the Secretary, upon giving me the news of the successful bomb test in New Mexico, and of the plan for using it, asked for my reaction, apparently expecting a vigorous assent.

"During his recitation of the relevant facts, I had been conscious of a feeling of depression and so I voiced to him my grave misgivings, first on the basis of my belief that Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary, and secondly because I thought that our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon whose employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives. It was my belief that Japan was, at that very moment, seeking some way to surrender with a minimum loss of 'face'. The Secretary was deeply perturbed by my attitude..."

- Dwight Eisenhower, Mandate For Change, pg. 380

In a Newsweek interview, Eisenhower again recalled the meeting with Stimson:

"...the Japanese were ready to surrender and it wasn't necessary to hit them with that awful thing."

- Ike on Ike, Newsweek, 11/11/63

[Odin2005]

117. Just because Ike thought Japan was about to surrender didn't mean they were going to surrender.

[Raskolnik]

76. Of the options available to Truman in August 1945, what would you have had him choose instead?

Invasion of the home islands?
Blockade until Japan was starved into submission?
Continue conventional strategic bombing?
Allow Japan to keep the conquered territories it still held, along with its wartime government?

What option would have led to less human suffering, in your opinion?

[Jim Lane]

211. The best option was to wait a couple weeks

The Japanese were taking encouragement from the fact that the USSR didn't declare war on Japan, even after V-E Day. Japanese diplomats in Moscow were trying to get the USSR to help broker a negotiated surrender.

What they didn't know was a secret provision of the Yalta agreement of February, 1945: that the Soviet Union would enter the Pacific War three months after the defeat of Germany.

On August 8, 1945, right on schedule, the USSR declared war on Japan. The Red Army then invaded Japan's holdings in Manchuria. Faced with the collapse of its hope for diplomatic help from the Soviet Union, and now under attack by the largest army in the world, Japan surrendered a few days later.

Oh, and, in between (on August 6 and August 9), the A-bombs were dropped.

Truman knew (as the Japanese did not) what the Soviets would do. He knew that this development would have a huge impact on Japan. He could have waited to see if the Soviet attack would push Japan to surrender. Waiting was cost-free; there were no plans to invade the Japanese home islands anytime before October.

I think it likely that Truman dropped the bombs, not out of fear that Japan would not surrender, but out of fear that it would surrender. He wanted the chance to demonstrate the new weapon, because he believed that he would thereby be able to intimidate the Russians in what he correctly foresaw to be the key postwar dynamic -- a power struggle between the US and the USSR.

Gar Alperovitz has written about this in Atomic Diplomacy: Hiroshima and Potsdam. It's very carefully reasoned and thoroughly sourced. I haven't read his more recent book, The Decision To Use the Atomic Bomb, but I assume it's to the same high standard.

[Thothmes]

180. You mean the weapons that FDR built.

[rolltideroll]

20. Hiroshima

It is horrible that we had to use nuclear weapons. However, with respect to your opinion,in the balance, lives were saved. The Japanese were preparing to resist landings with women and children armed with spears. I know that sounds a little unbelievable, but when you look at the mass suicides of Iwo Jima, combined with the fact that they would have been defending their home, causalities on both sides would have dwarfed Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The estimate I kept running across was 1 million dead on our side, The Japanese still had an army present in China that would have been used to resist us after we broke the beachhead. Truman made one of the toughest decisions in human history, but it was the only realistic decision. We were tired of war, exhausted at seeing caskets, and just wanted to end the war. Everyone seems to forget the mass murders committed by the Japanese in china and the Indonesia, we did end that.
Side note, I hate that my first post at DU was to disagree with someone, I used to lurk over at Free republic for a laugh, I spent about 45 min last night crawling through you guys archives rolling at some of the freeper insanity. Good to be here.

[Odin2005]

29. Welcome to DU!

:hi:

[rolltideroll]

32. Thanks for the welcome

[ShortnFiery]

41. We didn't HAVE to use nuclear weapons. The notion that we saved lives is BULLSHIT that

we tell each other to feel better about killing INNOCENTS. :nuke:

By being the FIRST AND ONLY PRESIDENT to use NUCLEAR WEAPONS, Truman is PURE FUCKING EVIL.

Why don't you go over to Japan, specifically the cities of Nagasaki and Hiroshima and ASK THEM how many lives TRUMAN'S EVIL BOMBS saved? :grr:

[rolltideroll]

44. The fact that Truman is the only one that has used them is a testament to our self control.

How many wars have we been in since that we could have used our nukes? Korea, Vietnam, Gulf wars etc. If we were as bloodthirsty as you seem to believe, we would have been using them left and right. It is terrible that it happened, but that is how history works. And if you examine the Japanese mindset about it, they feel that Pearl Harbor and the bombs essentially cancel each other out.

[ShortnFiery]

46. Bullshit! " self control"?!? W was all fired up to use bunker busters (mini-nukes).

In fact, if we were cursed with another GOP Executive Branch, our "self-control" could have brought about Nuclear Armageddon.

I have honorably served my country on AD in the US Army but I have no damn use for Nuclear Weapons.

REMEMBER, they can be used on US NOW.

Truman was fucking evil and he started this so called "self-control."

Let's hope that Pakistan has MORE self-control than Truman? :puke:

[Odin2005]

114. Lithium. Start taking it.

The only one here lacking self control here is you.

[ShortnFiery]

195. Civility. Start practicing it.

:evilgrin:

[Thothmes]

181. Maybe the evil belongs to the man that ordered them built.

[Greyhound]

24. While I agree with you (except for the Hell thing), we do tend to over-react to the use of atomic

weapons.

Now wait, before you start yelling at me, the use of nukes was largely a psychological weapon. We firebombed civilian populations in both Japan and Germany with equal devastation and casualties and had Truman decided to withhold the use of the "atom bomb" we would have continued to use incendiary bombs with even more disastrous results.

The "A" bombs achieved the desired effect and Japan surrendered, something that the firebombing had failed to do. Really, what is the difference between 1 bomb 1 city, and 10,000 bombs 1 city, except for the psychological effect? Without the "A" bombs, we probably would have ended up burning the entire nation of Japan instead of two cities.

The bottom line is that all wars are crimes and if you can't avoid them, the next best thing is to end them quickly, a lesson we seem to have forgotten.

[rurallib]

60. I have always felt the A-bombs were used to send a signal to Russia

not to fuck with us after Japan surrendered.

[DutchLiberal]

178. BINGO!

[Zomby Woof]

65. You made the point I was getting at with Dresden

Thank you. :thumbsup:

[Captain Hilts]

97. Dresden was WRONG. Even Churchill knew that. He should have said 'no' to Harris. nt

[Odin2005]

Looks like seeing shades of gray is beyond your cognitive abillities.

:eyes:

[ShortnFiery]

43. Say it with me: NUCLEAR ! ! ! There is no Reset button when "the balloon goes up."

[Zomby Woof]

66. You are very high-strung

Histrionics galore.

[ShortnFiery]

77. You are very dismissive of Truman opening the door to Nuclear Armageddon.

Ask the good people living in Nagasaki and Hiroshima IF I'm over reacting to Truman's EVIL deed?

I think not. :(

[Odin2005]

113. FALLACY ALERT!!!

How many times do you have to be told that far more people would of died if we invaded Japan?

[Raskolnik]

115. You know that WWII was filled with numerous acts that caused more death and destruction

than the use of the two nuclear weapons, right?

[Odin2005]

112. Dogmatic black-and-white thinking is her M. O.

To her if you are not a Naderite and a Naive Pacifist you are "Evil". She's the archetypal stereotype of the preachy Baby Boomer ideologue.

[ShortnFiery]

159. No, I'm far from dogmatic but I know ONE indisputable fact.

We live on ONE earth.

As human beings we have a choice to NOT kill one another.

If we don't make the correct choices in this NUCLEAR age, we will cease to exist.

p.s. IMO Harry S. Truman was "evil" for unleashing nukes on innocents. :shrug:

[Odin2005]

109. Like I said, nuance is obviously beyond you.

Your mindset is little better then that of the Freepers.

[ShortnFiery]

162. With your mindset "USA! USA! #1" I am understanding how "W" lied us into an immoral and illegal war.

There must be a boogieman under your bed. Quick, go look now! :evilgrin:

[Raskolnik]

170. For someone who is accused of being unable to grasp nuance, you are doing a remarkably

good job of confirming the accusation.

[Odin2005]

190. I was opposed to the Iraq debacle from day 1.

[zipplewrath]

36. Your focus is a bit off

By the time Truman was president, the bomb was practically developed. The Russian spies had already collected enough information to make their own, as had the British. The war was on full bore, people were dying and going to die horrible innocent deaths at the hands of others. Truman took a step that the whole nation would have expected him, nay DEMANDED he take if they had been knowledgeable of the choice. The shades of gray you are messing with are a matter of him choosing which innocents should die when and by whose hand. People, large numbers of people were going to die. Basically, I'm not going to try to moralize any of the choices with which he was presented. War is pretty much what you do long after you passed on all your moral options. He may be in Hell, but it was almost assuredly despite his decision on this one issue. The seeds of WWII were planted decades prior to Truman, and there were many more people far more responsible for nurturing and cultivating those seeds over the years. Truman is just the guy that drove the truck to the farmers market to deliver the fruits of those seeds. And he only got the job because the farmers regular truck broke down.

[ShortnFiery]

45. What is "PRACTICAL" about this ...

[zipplewrath]

55. Semantic word play won't change reality

The use of the word "practically" means that the technology was developed, but not yet gone through the final work to make the weapons usable. At that point, the fact that the Russians and other countries also had that level of development meant the weapon existed for any rational discussion. Truman's use didn't change that in any manner. It didn't particularly advance the science, nor really the technology. (Much of the methodology used was hurry up kinda stuff and soon no bombs at all would be made like those two).

But if you wish we can play gross out while I post pictures of bodies from both sides of Iwo Jima, Omaha Beach, Dresden, Nanking, or any other of the serious battles and war areas of WWII. War sucks, and it is horrible as well. That has little to do with any moralizing one might want to do about Truman's decision, which merely was between different types of unconscionable.

[ShortnFiery]

58. Will Israel use "Truman's Example" to PRACTICALLY bomb Iran.

:shrug:

[zipplewrath]

70. Dubious

I suspect they don't have the penetrating nukes needed for such a job. Without those, they wouldn't use nukes at all to just destroy surface facilities. The iranian program by all accounts is a highly distrubute effort, which makes it difficult to do with a "single strike". I'd be more suspicious of a "black bag" or sabotage effort. There wouldn't be anything practical about it.

[ShortnFiery]

80. No! A distinctly possible scenario. Israel has (or can obtain) all the technology.

And THAT scenario was made more viable because "your hero" nuclear bomber, Truman, set the example. :nuke:

[zipplewrath]

215. Please do cite

I'd be curious how anything I wrote can be remotely represented as considering Truman a Hero. Suggesting that he isn't the first born of the devil himself is hardly making him my hero.

[zipplewrath]

216. Dupe Delete

[Zomby Woof]

67. Nanking

Post some pictures from that unholy rape, and get back to us about EVIL TRUMAN.

[ShortnFiery]

88. Hey, we can trade war atrocity stories all day but only one EVIL bastard used NUKES on innocents.

:shrug:

[Raskolnik]

116. Then what was the better course of action in August 1945? n/t

[whathehell]

139. The Japanese were warned THREE times before Hiroshima and they still wouldn't surrender.

[Zomby Woof]

64. Naive, whiny, handwringing, bullshit

He HATED using those bombs, and because of their utter destructive force, he worked his ass off for the rest of his presidency to make sure they would remain in civilian control, and not under the military's. Hence, the Atomic Energy Commission on one hand, and the "nuclear football" in the other. He fought like hell to make sure atomic energy could be harnessed for PEACEFUL means. It was Truman who kept atomic weapons from being used in Korea (MacArthur was jonesing for them, which is one reason Truman was wise to secure civilian control of atomic weapons), precisely because he could not allow their further use for warfare and the killing of innocents.

Japan was not going to surrender any other way. They had already lost the war from a practical standpoint, but their feudal code would not allow surrender, period. There were full scale plans for an invasion under way, which surely would have cost more lives, civilian and military - in number exceeding the lives lost in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. As he said later, as much as he hated to use those weapons, he couldn't bear the thought of telling parents years later (if he had not used them), that he had the means to end the war sooner and saved their sons' and daughters' lives, but chose not to. The bomb was so shockingly powerful, that Japan did not surrender until TWO were used, AND that they had the assurance our demand for 'unconditional' surrender would not bring shame or harm to Hirohito. Otherwise, the war would have raged on for many more months or even years.

Bombing and war are horrible, senseless acts of destruction, but in the context of World War II, sitting around like Gandhi pooping in our white robes wasn't going to cut it. Had FDR lived, he would have used the bombs too. That is why they were built. All that time, effort, and expense was not so that we could pose and posture and make empty threats. That didn't make the decision easy, even if it was a foregone conclusion from the outset of the Manhattan Project. That's the problem with difficult decisions - they aren't as cut-and-dried, black-and-white, as simple minds seem to crave - whether on the right or the left.

And I am not even going to get into Dresden, which also undercuts your views.

I don't know why I am attempting to be rational with you anyway - you believe in purgatory and hell. Perhaps you should try formulating an argument that does not rely on a medieval belief system.

[ShortnFiery]

89. Eisenhower, you know = a REAL military man, despised Truman for using the bomb.

Don't kid yourself, Truman loved "playing God" with those Nukes when he had "options" to warn the Japanese. Nope! He wanted to use his pretty weapons and he unleashed "hell on earth" - only TRUMAN used NUKES on innocents. :shrug:

[ShortnFiery]

90. By many accounts Japan was looking for a way to surrender without "losing face."

http://www.doug-long.com/quotes.htm

DWIGHT EISENHOWER

"...in 1945... Secretary of War Stimson, visiting my headquarters in Germany, informed me that our government was preparing to drop an atomic bomb on Japan. I was one of those who felt that there were a number of cogent reasons to question the wisdom of such an act. ...the Secretary, upon giving me the news of the successful bomb test in New Mexico, and of the plan for using it, asked for my reaction, apparently expecting a vigorous assent.

"During his recitation of the relevant facts, I had been conscious of a feeling of depression and so I voiced to him my grave misgivings, first on the basis of my belief that Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary, and secondly because I thought that our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon whose employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives. It was my belief that Japan was, at that very moment, seeking some way to surrender with a minimum loss of 'face'. The Secretary was deeply perturbed by my attitude..."

- Dwight Eisenhower, Mandate For Change, pg. 380

In a Newsweek interview, Eisenhower again recalled the meeting with Stimson:

"...the Japanese were ready to surrender and it wasn't necessary to hit them with that awful thing."

- Ike on Ike, Newsweek, 11/11/63

[fascisthunter]

124. some people think it's a-ok to wipe out millions with a nuke

just apply the right excuse or rationalization and make sure you plant an American flag in that big pile of stinking shit too. Now that makes it all better... amazing what patriotism and adoration for a man will do ....

"killing in the name of..."

[Raskolnik]

126. If it wasn't ok to use nuclear weapons, what option was acceptable?

If the use of nuclear weapons was clearly wrong, there must be an option that was clearly right in August 1945. What was it?

[fascisthunter]

129. there was the option of fighting a war the way we always have

There was also evidence that Japan had already been defeated, and that dropping a nuke was totally unnecessary... I've noticed you ignored that.

For folks like yourself, it's a-ok. I get that... you probably believe more guns lead to safer environments, even though the opposite has been proven true already. You don't need an argument for it, because your want for it is greater than your reasoning.

Obviously you feel killing with a nuke is ok... well, I haven't fallen down that rabbit hole, and don't intend to.

[Raskolnik]

136. "fighting a war the way we always have"

Japan had been militarily "defeated" since Midway, but that didn't stop them from fighting on. So, to continue fighting "the way we always have" means either blockade of the home islands to starve Japan into surrender, continued strategic bombing, invasion of the home islands, or some combination of the above.

Of course, we could also have chosen to allow Japan to retain its conquered territory and its wartime leadership, sailed home.

So, what alternative do you think was morally preferrable to the use of nuclear weapons?

[fascisthunter]

137. they could have fought on like the Japs were willing to

but hey... dropping nukes is so much easier.

[Raskolnik]

138. So vicious hand-to-hand invasion that would likely have extended the war by many months,

killed many hundreds of thousands of Japanese and Americans, and utterly devastated Japan's remaining infrastructure, thereby delaying post-war recovery by years, was *preferrable* to the use of two nuclear weapons to end the war in August of 1945?

That doesn't make a lick of sense.

edit typo

[fascisthunter]

141. I guess The Japs were willing to go all the way and America wasn't

also, dropping nukes on innocent people makes less sense, but to some I guess it does as long as our team wins... wait, America already did win.

[Raskolnik]

142. What the hell are you talking about? What does "willing to go all the way" even mean?

I don't mean to be rude, but I don't think you really know very much about this subject, and your posts are do not indicate that you have much knowledge of what the situation in 1945 actually was.

In August of 1945 it was clear that the war against Japan could only conclude in one of a limited number of ways: we could have continued the conventional war against them (as you suggested we should have done) which any reasonable person acknowledges would have cost many hundreds of thousands of lives at a minimum, which INCLUDES CIVILIANS, we could have sailed home and allowed Japan to retain conquered territories and its wartime leadership, or we could have ended the war with the use of nuclear weapons.

Either of the first two options would almost certainly have resulted in a multiple of the death and destruction caused by the use of nuclear weapons, but you refuse to acknowledge that fact.

[fascisthunter]

143. and I think your last sentence is regurgitated garbage

using nukes on civilians is sick... it was unnecessary but the script in your own head fed to you from where ever prevents you from acknowledging that much. Your so-called grasp on info is pure speculation and driven by politics, not facts. I said before in my first post, that people will rationalize anything. This is a perfect example. Well, raskolnik... there are extremists all around the World that would agree with you on using nukes to avoid more death (bizarre)... you better pray I'm wrong.

Makes ya wonder why we don't use nukes more often... after all. Everyone has a righteous reason to kill.

[Raskolnik]

147. Then it should be easy for you to explain how continuing the conventional war against Japan

would have resulted in less death and destruction than the use of nuclear weapons.

I'll help you out to get you started: We could have blockaded the home islands and starved Japan into submission over the course of several months (best case scenario); we could have continued strategic conventional bombing; we could have invaded the home islands; or we could have done some combination of the above.

So what course of action are you proposing Truman should have adopted?

[Thothmes]

184. These people were not innocent

they were active supporters of the Japanese war effort. The built ships, aircraft, ammunition, weapons, and spare parts for the Imperial armed forces. They were doing that on the very day that the bombs went off in those cities.

[ShortnFiery]

151. "... morally preferrable to the use of nuclear weapons?"

NOT EVER using nuclear weapons ... as in NEVER! :thumbsup:

[Raskolnik]

156. Then what was the affirmative course of action to take?

You haven't even tried to answer that question.

[ShortnFiery]

150. Yes, they call us "trolls" and "histrionic" because we side with both Eisenhower and humanity.

Wow, something's wrong with these sentiments. :shrug:

[Raskolnik]

154. Just so you know, cutting & pasting a quote from Eisenhower does not

transfer his credibility to you.

It's clear that you've spent some time cutting & pasting from Doug Long's website, but it's just as clear that you aren't being intellectually honest about putting those quotations in their contexts.

Eisenhower was Supreme Allied Commander in *Europe,* not the Pacific. He had opinions about how the war against Japan should be waged, but he was not a part of the high-level deliberations or privy to the high-level intelligence. Eisenhower had political reasons for distancing himself from the use of nuclear weapons, and it was probably the appropriate political stance to take.

However, if you think for one second that he would not have dropped nuclear weapons on German cities had they been ready prior to Germany's surrender, then I have to question your historical knowledge.

[ShortnFiery]

163. But you didn't read CLOSE enough. Eisenhower maintained that attitude AFTER the fact.

That is, he did not change his opinion.

BTW don't compare apples and oranges with Ike. You are seemingly spinning out of your mind in order to maintain your adoration of all thinks Truman.

People disagree, try accepting that fact without lowering yourself to junior high tactics? :shrug:

[Raskolnik]

166. I really don't mean to be rude, but that post didn't make any sense.

Eisenhower had political reasons for opposing the use of nuclear weapons against Japan, and the fact remains that no credible historian thinks that he would not have used nuclear weapons against Germany had they been ready prior to its surrender.

[Thothmes]

183. They were not his pretty weapons

Franklin D. Roosevelt ordered those weapons built.

[Zynx]

132. The firebombings of Germany and Japan killed far more people than nukes ever have.

Those were directly aimed at civilians. FDR ordered more of those raids than Truman did and killed more civilians than him.

[14thColony]

221. The notion that Japan would not surrender

had it not been for the dropping of the two nukes has taken quite a beating now that the US military's MAGIC intercepts of Japanese diplomatic communications have been de-classified and released.

The MAGIC intercepts, along with pre-existing testimony of eyewitnesses such as J.F. Dulles, show that Japan had been making increasingly desperate attempts to arrange terms of surrender with the United States since at least January 1945 -- to include trying to elicit the USSR as an intermediary. For reasons that will probably never be known for certain, the US either ignored or rebuffed each attempt.

[Greyhound]

21. And he reintegrated the returning GIs into the economy by pushing women

back out of the workplace and exacerbated the post-war chaos by demanding little or nothing from big businesses.

But over all he did, or tried to do, the right thing and was still far preferable to the republics.

[rolltideroll]

22. Returning G.I.s

I agre. my great grandfather was a sharecropper. That is the next thing to slavery. The G.I. Bill pulled my ancestors from the bottom rung of society to college graduates. I may be looking at past in too favourable a light, but it really seems we had a period when the concern was almost solely on those who needed help the most.

[Greyhound]

28. It was too short lived, was highly racial and sexist, and was mostly FDR, but it did happen.

I've frequently wondered what might have been had FDR picked someone better than Truman as his new Veep. IIRC, for some reason nobody wanted it and Truman was not his first choice.

Edit; I just noticed, welcome to DU.:hi:

[Odin2005]

34. There was a certain Henry Wallace character in FDR's cabinet who was an interesting guy.

I've read that had FDR not have ran for a 3rd term Wallace would have been the nominee. He had a good socialist streak, supposedly. We could of been more like Sweden today had he been in charge.

One reason I like Obama is that he seems to be a mix of the best of FDR, Wallace, and Truman. He has FDR's pragmatism and gift for oratory, Wallace's reformism, and Truman's down-to-earth toughness and refusal to pass the buck.

[Zomby Woof]

69. Wallace was a flake

Whatever good ideas he may have had, they were lost in a fog of quasi-New Age flakiness. He wasn't good at working Washington. He was an able administrator while in the cabinet, but most likely would have been a disaster as president. That is why he was scrapped for the '44 ticket. Plus, the Truman years would reveal that Wallace was hopelessly naive regarding the USSR. I doubt he would have carried out the Berlin Airlift, one of the greatest feats of the Truman presidency.

[Odin2005]

120. Thanks for explaining that.

Sounds like he was the kind of naive leftist that was shocked when word of Stalin's atrocities leaked out.

[rolltideroll]

35. Thanks for the welcome

Truman, in my opinion, proves the idea that it is bad to pick a veep solely based on if it will help you carry a region. Truman was held in such low regard by FDR that he was unaware of the bomb's existence. Separately, on the use if the I think today we just forget how war weary people were then. They lived through a world war, depression and a world war in a 30 year period.It does not make it ok, all war is brutal, but it does make it more understandable as a decision.

[Odin2005]

31. WTF? I highly doubt Truman personally ordered women to quit their jobs.

That's a very odd claim. :wtf:

IIRC the GOP was gaining the upper hand in some respects (they took congress for a term in the late 40s IIRC) and using some "Had Enough" slogan. The public mood had turned a bit conservative, which is not surprising since the public mood shifts back and forth between liberal and conservative every 20 years or so, Truman was merely trying to solidify the gains of the New Deal.

[Greyhound]

47. I doubt that Idiot Frat Boy personally ordered the massacre of Iraqi either, what's your point?

The rest of what you say is true, and he was doing his best, the problem was that he was far from the best. He was generally out maneuvered, out thought, and generally outclassed. Think Gerald Ford.

[Odin2005]

106. Gerry Ford? Oh, come on. That's a pathetic insult to Truman.

Nothing I've read about Truman suggests he was "out maneuvered" and "out thought".

[Captain Hilts]

135. The New Deal didn't fight policies making it legal to fire female govt. employees...

whose husbands worked for the govt. That was the law in the 30s.

Men began to encroach of female professions - teaching, libraries, etc.

It's interesting how T.H. Watkins' history of the New Deal - the TV show and the book, completely IGNORE how the Depression affected women.

[Captain Hilts]

133. It was legal in the 30s for the govt. to fire female govt. employees if their husbands were employed

[Odin2005]

25. Not this BS Monday morning quarterbacking AGAIN!

Read up on your history. An invasion of Japan would of killed far more civilians then the A-bombs did.

[ShortnFiery]

48. Yes, and we could PLAY GOD with the use of nuclear weapons. What will Pakistan do since

we started "the show?" We were WRONG to use Nukes. I'll always believe that. You don't mess with that force of nature without a whole hell-of-va lot of Karma coming back to you. Truman was an EVIL BASTARD for using Nukes. He saved NOBODY and wiped out two Japanese Cities filled with innocents.

[Odin2005]

103. I see you're being as irrational and preachy as usual.

And "playing God" isn't an argument, it's luddite Judeo-Christian BS. I'm a biotech major so "playing God" is gonna be my job, thus I find that "playing God remark insulting. Like I said, READ YOUR HISTORY. Your claim that it saved nobody is profoundly ignorant and false.

[ShortnFiery]

199. "... playing God remark insulting." From an individual with screen name ODIN?!?

Oh please stop now ... you're cracking me up. :spray: :rofl:

[DutchLiberal]

177. Are you also counting the hundreds of thousands of people born decades after the Bomb?

Radiation, you know?

[olegramps]

33. I suppose that you would have supported an invasion of Japan.

Such an invasion would have resulted in massive loss of life on both sides. Japan was in a mode in which they were determined to fight to the last man. To surrender was considered to be absolutely dishonorable. So you think Truman is going to hell. What about the Japanese who committed some of the most hideous atrocities. You sure wouldn't have found any GIs weeping over the use of the atomic bomb to end the war.

[ShortnFiery]

49. You buy into revisionist history? There were OTHER reports that Japan was ready to surrender.

It's SO CONVENIENT when you're "an American" to judge that *certain lives* are more worthy than others - therefore, we can NUKE entire cities. No, you don't get to wear the white hats.

My father was battlefield commissioned in Italy during WWII. The men who he killed haunted him in his nightmares for the rest of his life. My father would not have nuked Japan and he was the most honorable man I knew.

No, we were wrong to Nuke those two Japanese Cities as much as we were to Invade Iraq. No amount of moral revisionism will negate that FACT from the rest of the World Community.

[zipplewrath]

56. As oppose to what?

You don't want to choose who lives and who dies. Who does? But that is what war is. Certain people have the responsibility to the men they command. Truman wasn't deciding if Japanese were going to die, he was deciding how. The war was well on by the time he was in that chair. It had been on for years. There were dead Americans from every town, and everyday the war went on there would be more, on both sides. His primary interest was in stopping the war, for good. Were there other ancillary interests? Sure, but even without them, his goal would been an immediate end. He was offered the opportunity to end it very quickly with a decisive move. He took it. They would have strung him up in the streets like Mussolini if he hadn't (and they of course found out). War is immoral and folks want to sit here 70 years hence and try do divide up the battlefield into more horrible and less horrible. The lesson isn't about how to divide up the battlefield, it is how to not create battlefields, because it gets real horrible, real fast. It's this concept that somehow we can fight "clean" wars or "moral" wars that gets us into them in the first place. The State Department should be bigger than the Defense Department because we'd rather "fight them at the negotiating table" than on a battlefield.

[ShortnFiery]

82. You want to talk WHAT gets "real horrible, real fast?" How about NUCLEAR WAR?

Damn, I don't think you are truly embracing what a Pandora's box Truman has opened. Truman was not only WRONG he was EVIL to use weapons that may very well be the end of the Human Race. No way in hell should we ever let that evil bastard off the hook for NUKING those two Japanese Cities. :thumbsdown:

[zipplewrath]

219. I'm suggesting he didn't break the locks

The point of disagreement here is whether Truman can be credited with "opening pandoras box". By the time Truman was there, at the very least the locks had been broken, and more than just the US knew how to use it. About the best one can credit Truman with is finding the box open and saying "ooh, look, neat toys!". And even that is unfair. A more credible metaphor is that he was a man lost in the desert, thirsty, came upon some open water, and didn't notice it was salt water.

The truth is his use may have prevented actual nuclear war between the US and Russia. The honest truth is that even some of the men who engineered the original bombs, didn't completely understand what they had made. Feynman talks about it in his book, that he was probably the only guy to look at it with his "naked" eyes. Everyone else had some variation of welders goggles on, but he just jumped in a jeep and looked through the wind shield. At the distance they were, the only "rays" of which to be concerned would be filtered by ordinary glass. Even after we dropped those two, we had tests where we detonated bombs, and within hours had troops walking through the area. Folks just didn't completely understand what we had. Too many though of them as "just bigger bombs". Go read newspaper accounts in the days following. No one understood. The law of unintended consequences could have easily been at work here in that the use of them when we did, exposed to the world just how horrible these things were. We went through a similar cycle with mustard gas. First use exposed how dangerous and stupid of a weapon these things were and coming as they did towards the end of a war, instead of the beginning, gave "cooler heads" a chance to figure out that using them wasn't a great idea. (as and aside, it is quickly becoming obvious that these weapons are more of a burden than a power and I won't be surprise if in about 100 years, they are treated much like bio-chem weapons are today).

And there in lies the problem with all of this Monday morning quarterbacking. Today, we all have those "cooler heads" and can sit in easy judgement and make easy assertions. We can sit now and see that maybe the Japanese may have actually surrendered, even though at the time, they had demonstrated absolutely no propensity for doing anything like that. Today, the Japanese could have more quickly understood what such a weapon could do, without having one dropped upon them. But at the time, even after the first one was dropped, they could not quite come to the conclusions that "cooler heads" came to. Even after the second one was dropped there were serious forces in Japan attempting to fight on, and they weren't some small radical minority. Eisenhower's point of view existed because he fought the european theater, which was a completely different war. People surrendered, we were often greeted as liberators, and we could eat the food and drink the wine as we passed through. No such occurences happened in the pacific. Bodies of both sides were booby trapped by the japanese. White flags were ignored. Offers for surrender were often greeted with hostile fire. Water and food was poisoned. And by then of course we knew of the Rape of Nanking, the mass suicides, the Bataan death march, and the small acts of atrocities that were done to soldiers. (genitals and military tatoos were cut off and stuff into the mouths of dead soldiers for the medics to find). Eisenhower did not command through this, and it gave him a different point of view. Strangely, because of this he was probably a better assessor of the future than those that had suffered through the pacific campaign. Which is what "cooler heads" are really all about. But we should remember that we get to BE the cooler heads because of what other men who preceeded us did to get us here.

[Thothmes]

185. I take it that you father was not one of the ETO

veterans that were sent to the Pacific theater in preparation for the invasion of Japan.

[rolltideroll]

218. My greatuncle was on one of the planes headed towards a staging area

when Japan surrendered. I look at my cousins and wonder if they never would have been without the bomb. My Great Grandfather, fortunately,served with Patton, he was part of the group that relieved Bastogne.(sp?) I think an old African proverb comes into play here: When elephants fight,it is the grass who suffers. Regardless of how you feel,due to the war mongering decisions of the leadership, mainly the people suffered. We didn't run through and hang the Japanese leadership nearly as much as we tried the Germans.Now, I know people will try to compare bush to the Imperial high command, but bush doesn;t have that evil, deep inside that Tojo had. This is a guy who ordered Nanjing to go down, a man who said the Chinese were the offspring of Apes and Japanese prisoners, a man who ordered American POW;s to be systematically starved to death, burnt alive in trenches, or shot and tortured, or forcing Chinese and Indonesian women as young as 12 to serve as prostitutes or comfort Women for the army. Bush lacked the intelligence to hang with this guy.They knew at the end their hold on power was done. They absolutely, without batting an eye, would have trained 8 year olds to come after our troops with grenades, or rush landing boats with spears. I am not exaggerating, captured Japanese documents reveal this. The bomb was evil. God yes. But sometimes, in the face of a monster, you have to use what we have.

[poverlay]

62. You're very wrong. The man made the most difficult decision in the history of the world. Who are

you to judge this very good man who had the weight of the world and millions upon millions of lives hanging in the balance of that decision? I doubt anyone besides a national leader could even begin to comprehend the horror of that choice. Given what he knew when he made that decision, it must have been the most awful thing imaginable. Give the poor man a break.

[rolltideroll]

73. Truman

I remember reading that Truman was at a college. A student asked him whether it was wrong. He took the kids head off. Basically he said he valued human life too highly to have ordered an invasion of Japan. His duty was to protect the American people, and he could never look a mother with a son who had died duri g the invasion in the eye when the bomb could have just ended the war.Truman did his job.

[ShortnFiery]

79. Truman valued *some* human life as more valuable.

That's what made that bastard pure evil.

[Raskolnik]

125. Of course he valued some lives over others. He was the president of the U.S., not the U.N.

If the President of the United States does not place a higher value on the lives of Americans, he is not doing his job. That doesn't mean he can/should be cruel, wanton, or reckless, but his responsibility is first and foremost to do whatever is in the best interests of the people of the United States. That's reality.

[Zynx]

134. He weighed American lives versus Japanese lives. That's a military decision and the right one.

[ShortnFiery]

157. "a right one."

For EMPIRE? Without demonstrating the mighty force of nukes off Island and then giving the Japanese an opportunity to surrender without the loss of innocent life? Oh no, it saved "the more blessed" lives of US AMERICANS because, God is always on our side ... the right side. :(

Yeah, I'd like to see Harry Truman's audience with Saint Peter?

Well, Harry probably wasn't even allowed in Heaven's Elevator before Saint Peter pushed the DOWN button from above. :shrug:

[Zynx]

194. That's the decision a U.S. president SHOULD make.

When you are a leader and the choice is between 10 people of your country and 10 of another, I think the choice is clear.

This has nothing to do with God and Truman didn't think so either.

[verges]

206. Then ANY leader

during ANY war is pure evil. In war, that's what leaders do. Truman's job was to preserve American lives. Not Japanese. That's what a wartime leader is supposed to do: destroy the enemy. An Invasion of Japan would have generated another 100,000 AMERICAN deaths. Every war leader values his own peoples lives more than the enemies. If he sacrifices his own people over enemy lives, he becomes guilty of treason.

[ShortnFiery]

78. A "good man" does not kill innocents with NUCLEAR weapons because he considers that

GOD (and nuclear weapons) is on the USA's side. Truman had no right to play God.

[rolltideroll]

94. Japans use of civilians

Most of those people would have been forced into shock suicide squads to repel American invaders. I do not see the difference between those people being shot by us or being bombed. We had been hitting Japanese cities non stop for months. The fires Tokyo endured from bombings were epic. I am firmly of the opinion the war would have dragged on for 5 years, millions dead, and Japan would not today be an economic power. Not to mention the Soviets getting a toehold in Japan, setting up a second Berlin, and allowing that monster Stalin to bring millions more under his rule.IT saved lives. You claim Truman valued American lives more than Japanese. He was the commander in chief of our armed forces, we were in a war that we did not want or start, of course he valued American lives more.If he valued Japanese lives more, he would have fought for them.Japan was only putting out peace feelers as a way to buy time so they could fortify the home islands.They would surrender only if the Emperor was left in place, the Army and Navy suffered no penalties, and they did not have to admit responsibility for starting the war. Japan basically told us they wanted to just have a mulligan for the war.

[ShortnFiery]

104. Yadda yadda yadda, they're SAVAGE ... yadda. NUCLEAR WEAPONS.

:nuke:

[verges]

207. No doubt about that.

But so is war.

[rolltideroll]

217. I never once said they were savages.

They government they were living under,however, was. My girl is a Chinese national, so I don't appreciate the idea that I am akin to some racist who writes off an advanced civilization due to their culture or race.By ending that particular regime, I honestly feel we improved the world. Ask the Chinese how they feel about us dropping the bomb.

[poverlay]

210. Truman didn't "play" God, he played President with terrible choices. Lucky, lucky you to never have

to be in such a position or, thanks to him, to even have to live in such a world.

[Captain Hilts]

99. And he had just about no one to consult on the decision.

He talked to Marshall, Eleanor and Hopkins, I think.

Bess Truman was totally pissed she hadn't been consulted. And it put their marriage in a cooler for quite a while.

[ShortnFiery]

105. Bullshit! People were consulted including Eisenhower.

But Truman wanted to show off his power. :nuke:

[Captain Hilts]

107. You need to read history. Very few people in DC knew about it and HST would not use the phone...

to discuss it.

You are troll.

[Odin2005]

122. SnF is a raving lunatic who needs a shrink and some meds.

She is completely incapable of logic. I'm guessing she's Bipolar with Histrionic Personality Disorder.

[Captain Hilts]

127. I've always kind of suspected that.

Blows up every thread they're in.

[ShortnFiery]

145. How thoughtful. Perhaps Pakistan thinks that the USA is a rogue nation like Truman about Japan?

You will not open your mind enough to realize that we were WRONG to use Nuclear Weapons. By that mere fact we have made the world more unsafe for humanity.

Shame on you for name calling. I have treated you, as a fellow DU member with respect.

You are just behaving rude because you have lost the argument.

However, I forgive you and readily accept your apology. :-) :hi:

[Odin2005]

186. Shame on you for accusing me of defending "genoicide and mass murder".

[ShortnFiery]

196. But if you look closer (capture the nuisance?) that's exactly what you are defending.

:shrug:

[verges]

208. Do you not think that somebody

else would have used them eventually? The Soviets perhaps? The two bombs, by showing their destructive abilities, were then able to serve as an illustrative deterrent during the Cold War that test explosions never would have been able to do.

[ShortnFiery]

148. And I'm guessing you are merely demonstrating an inherent need for Authoritarian Worship.

Well, with a concomitant side dose of Histrionic Personality Disorder thrown in for good measure.

See how easy that is? ;)

[Odin2005]

188. I have Asperger's Syndrome, I hate unmerited authority by my very nature.

And I'm (mildly) bipolar myself. :P

[ShortnFiery]

197. I have no formal diagnosis so I'll admit to be at a loss.

:shrug:

[ShortnFiery]

144. No, you need to accept the fact that there are alternate views with regard to Japan's

desire to surrender at the end of WWII.

You will NOT accept that fact because it would tear down your vision of an heroic Harry S. Truman.

Again, historians disagree but I'll side with Eisenhower.

BTW, no I'm NOT a troll. Merely a person who strongly disagrees with your version of history.

IMO, you are behaving in "a rude manner" by such name calling. :(

http://www.doug-long.com/quotes.htm
~~~DWIGHT EISENHOWER

"...in 1945... Secretary of War Stimson, visiting my headquarters in Germany, informed me that our government was preparing to drop an atomic bomb on Japan. I was one of those who felt that there were a number of cogent reasons to question the wisdom of such an act. ...the Secretary, upon giving me the news of the successful bomb test in New Mexico, and of the plan for using it, asked for my reaction, apparently expecting a vigorous assent.

"During his recitation of the relevant facts, I had been conscious of a feeling of depression and so I voiced to him my grave misgivings, first on the basis of my belief that Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary, and secondly because I thought that our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon whose employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives. It was my belief that Japan was, at that very moment, seeking some way to surrender with a minimum loss of 'face'. The Secretary was deeply perturbed by my attitude..."

- Dwight Eisenhower, Mandate For Change, pg. 380

In a Newsweek interview, Eisenhower again recalled the meeting with Stimson:

"...the Japanese were ready to surrender and it wasn't necessary to hit them with that awful thing."

- Ike on Ike, Newsweek, 11/11/63

[Captain Hilts]

85. Easy to say in 2008. Eleanor would have dropped the bomb if forced to choose...

and she was as peace, love and granola as they got.

[ShortnFiery]

92. No, Eleanor would have listened to Ike and realized that Japan was LOOKING for a way to surrender.

http://www.doug-long.com/quotes.htm

[Captain Hilts]

95. You need to read the correspondence between ER and Truman. In the 1950s...

she said after her trip to Japan that seeing their defenses made her all the more sure dropping the bomb was the correct decision.

[ShortnFiery]

102. We will NEVER know for sure because Truman did NOT give them a chance to surrender.

For that, the bastard is pure evil.

[Captain Hilts]

108. Your opinion. TROLL. nt

[Greyhound]

111. That is complete and utter bullshit. They had dozens of chances to surrender.

After Midway it was obvious that the war was lost and we asked and asked and asked.

[Captain Hilts]

128. Or after the first bomb. nt

[ShortnFiery]

146. No, historians disagree. I will side with Eisenhower as he was later ELECTED President.

He resented the hell out of Truman for dropping NUKES and I concur with good company. :-)

[Raskolnik]

149. So I assume you approve of Eisenhower's use of high-altitude strategic bombing

against Germany?

[ShortnFiery]

153. No, I think mere bombing is chicken-shit, however, it will not wipe out humanity in on fell swoop.

The use of NUCLEAR weapons in our future will spiral into the eradication of the human race.

Your IDOL "Give em hell" Harry Truman opened this Pandora's box. :shrug:

[Raskolnik]

158. You are misguided in several aspects. First, nuclear weapons were developed under Roosevelt

not Truman. If Harry Truman had never been born, the world would still be chock-full of nuclear weapons today. If you want to blame someone for opening Pandora's box, you should be looking at Oppenheimer & company, not politicians.

Second, you are arguing against the future use of nuclear weapons. Good for you. No one is arguing anything to the contrary.

[ShortnFiery]

160. Roosevelt did not NUKE innocents, your hero Truman did.

:shrug:

[Raskolnik]

161. So Roosevelt developed nuclear weapons for what purpose? Fishing?

We would have used nuclear weapons on Germany had they not surrendered in May. I don't know of many historians that dispute that, but if you know of any, you may suggest to them that they ask for their tuition money back.

And, just so you know, having a basic understanding of the historical reality of WWII does not mean Truman is my "hero."

[ShortnFiery]

165. Now we all have NUKES and many here can now fully understand why every nation in the world

wants nukes. Because YOUR HERO, Harry S. Truman has used them and they are always "at the ready."

The World is AS FRIGHTENED of the USA (and Israel) as they are of The Muslim World. Why? Because with you and all the "adorers of Harry Truman"

= The End Justifies The Means

I think we all need "an attitude readjustment" if we are all going to LIVE on one planet?

[Raskolnik]

167. Oh, so you think that had Truman not made the decision to drop the bombs, other nations

would not have developed their own nuclear programs.

I see. Carry on.

[ShortnFiery]

169. You're shameless. You know that you've lost the argument as Truman was the only

President to use Nukes, yet you persist.

Sorry but your hero set a bad precedent that leaves the rest of the World in fear of our arrogance.

I love my country and have honorably served on AD. However, I'm not so blinded by nationalism that I won't admit when we have gone astray.

Good people can disagree.

Carry On. AIRBORNE! :patriot:

[Raskolnik]

171. I'm not sure how you think the world works, but I don't think it matches up with reality.

Other nations didn't develop nuclear weapons because Truman set the "president" of their use. They developed them because they had the capability to develop insanely powerful weapons, and it is unfortunatly human nature for nations to do just that if they have the ability.

[ShortnFiery]

172. I made the verbal correction to "precedent" ... if human nature = The Ends Justify the Means

rules the policies of World Powers, that will mean the end of our species.

We must change our mindset, and fast lest we cease to exist.

You KNOW the foregoing is true but too many people still believe that "action movies" are REALITY.

I've seen abject poverty and have lived in several countries throughout the world. Yes, I know human nature.

As an American, I pray that we bring out the BEST PART of what makes us a great nation.

[Raskolnik]

192. Nothing in your post explains what better option existed in August 1945.

Unless and until you can answer that basic question, you're just avoiding the ugly reality that existed in WWII.

[Greyhound]

152. That has nothing to do with the fact that they had many, many chances to surrender. n/t

[ShortnFiery]

155. Historians and General Officers disagree - to include DDE. n/t

[Thothmes]

187. The Japanese had every opportunity to surrender in 1945.

all they had to do to end the war was signal acceptance of the Potsdam accords. Had they done so, the war would have ended in a few days. The Japanese were not "trying to surrender", they were trying to end the war on their terms. If was FDR's policy from the begining of the war that the only terms acceptable to the United States and our allies was the complete and unconditional surrender of both German and Japan. HST was carrying out FDR's the policy that FDR had agreed to with our allies in the war.

[Greyhound]

110. But. They . Didn't.

And that's the bottom line here. They had, literally, dozens of chances and every reason to surrender, but they didn't.

America was tired, hurting, nearly broke, and fast running out of bodies to throw into this meat grinder. I don't think it is really possible, for us today, to imagine how completely exhausted and angry they were. There was nobody in this entire nation that hadn't been wounded by the atrocity that was WWII, and the people didn't want to get into it in the first place.

Can you even imagine that? Everybody* living was married or related to somebody that had been killed or wounded in that damned war. That war we didn't start and went to great lengths to avoid, Europe's war. Japan dragged us into that war, killed our boys, tortured those that surrendered, and made us hate them as we'd never hated anybody before or since. Japan did it all.

But we fought them and we beat them, and they wouldn't surrender. We kept beating them and they wouldn't surrender. We rooted them out, island by island, until they had no hope, no food, no ammunition, and they still didn't surrender. So Eisenhower and others thought they would finally surrender, but they didn't.

Have you ever had a loved one killed? I don't mean someone that died, I mean brutally, purposely killed, for no good reason at all. Well, every last person in this nation did then, and if you'd put the use of nuclear bombs to a vote before the people they would have voted, not only to use them, but to keep on using them until every last vestige of the Japanese people was erased from the face of the earth, by a majority so overwhelming there's nothing in our history to compare it to.


*(in a practical sense, I'm sure somebody, somewhere, escaped it but I've never heard or read of them)

[DutchLiberal]

176. True that. I refer to him as a war criminal.

Is that wrong? :shrug:

[Enthusiast]

212. Actually incendiaries dropped on Tokyo

killed more civilians than Nagasaki and Hiroshima combined. And it was essential that The Soviet Union understand the serious consequences of a nuclear weapon.

[Thothmes]

6. In 1940 the unemployment rate was at 14.6%.

The "Depression" may have been over the a serious recession lingered on. By 1944 the unemployment rate was down to 1.5%. The war eventually fixed the economy. There is no doubt that FDR's efforts went a long way in ending the Depression.

[louis c]

8. You seem to miss my point

The right wing zealots want to narrow the argument to "did FDR end the depression before WWII?". My point is, he lessened the negative impact, gave people hope in the future and confidence in their government. That was lacking in many other countries, which spiraled into disaster for them. He stabilized the nation and put us on a solid enough footing to fight and win WWII. Had he not been elected, and Hoover won reelection in 1932, extremists on the right and left may have ripped this country apart, causing the same type of turmoil and disaster that took place in Germany, Italy and Russia.

[ShortnFiery]

17. Since we don't have the manufacturing base that was fired-up before WWII, the point is moot.

We don't have the manufacturing capability. We need to not overpopulate and adjust to service oriented jobs. Hopefully, bring telemarketing and banking back to our mainland. :shrug:

[zipplewrath]

37. Green jobs

Obama's focus on "green technologies" is a hope at bringing some of that back. Much of the manufacturing that existed after WWII didn't exist in any form prior. It created a whole aircraft industry. It created odd little industries (including sanitary napkins actually). It jump started the computer industry and the space industry. If we can repeat even a little of that effect, we can bring some levels of production back to the US.

[ProfessorGAC]

61. There Was A Huge Increase In Consumer Confidence

And, by 1937, unemployment fell from >25% to <15%. So, GDP was up, currency valuation had stabilized, and UE went down. Consumer confidence went way up, so your reference to hope is proven by data.

In 1938, the economy regressed a bit, because advisors convinced FDR to scale back the spending for a year. When all indicators went south and FDR became more convinced war was coming, he renewed the expenditures and things began to improve again.

GAC

[Zynx]

15. Those numbers include those working for work-relief programs.

The actual unemployment rate with those counted as government employees was less than 10%.

[Chisox08]

40. The only reason the war ended the Depression was

Government spending dwarfed government spending during the New Deal. The war effort on the home front was the New Deal on steriods. Americans were put to work building tanks, planes, guns, ships and other items needed to fight the war. Truman tried to solidify the gains made by the New Deal. Eisinhower even kept government spending going by building the interstate highway system. There is no one ansewer to what pulled us out of the Great Depression it was a combination of things and the Repukes of today are doing what they can in order to downgrade the achievements of the New Deal.
Right now we need a new New Deal in order to pull us out of this mess, with Universal Health Care as a main focus. just like in Europe their health care systems sprung up after WWII. They felt it was better to spend their money helping people rather than killing them. Universal Health free companies from having to provide health benifits to their employees directly and allows them to keep more money than any tax cut would allow. this will allow them to offer more jobs or pay the employees more.

[JHB]

9. Also, HOW did WW2 "end the Depression"?

Whenever someone blithely says WW2 "is what really" ended the Depression, remind them of exactly HOW it did so: unprecendented government spending, high marginal tax rates (80% and higher), full employment including over a million government jobs (actually more than full employment, which led to women getting jobs they'd been excluded from previously), limits on profits (i.e., anti-war profiteering measures), rationing of food, fuel, and other essentials, and so on.

NOT the sort of program conservatives are apt to advocate these days.

[Chisox08]

42. That is exactly how WWII ended the Depression

It was the New Deal on steroids. Massive government spending, high tax rates an increase in government jobs and more employment opportunities that allowed Women and African Americans to get good paying jobs. Once you explain how WWII ended the Depression their arguments fail.

[Greyhound]

50. And without the New Deal we would not have had the capacity or infrastructure to

do that. So taken from that perspective, the New Deal literally saved the world.

[izquierdista]

10. Where the RW gets their memory

From Ronald Reagan. :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[SmileyRose]

23. Seems like everyone who was alive then and still is thinks so.

the only people I ever hear run down FDR are folks who weren't even born yet.

[Redbear]

26. Yes.

Yes he did.

WWII then set the stage for a booming postwar economy.

[Odin2005]

27. FDR's problem was that he didn't spend enough until WW2 forced him to.

FDR was actually a fiscal conservative at heart and never fully accepted Keynesianism. The economy slipped back into recession in 1937 because he tried to cut spending.

[Greyhound]

52. Look at who he was, where he came from, and most importantly who his backers were. n/t

[old mark]

38. First off, the Japanese were working on their own version of

atomic bombs with help from the Nazis - ig they had had more time they certainly would have used those weapons on us.
Secondly, the Japanese Home Islands wre preparing for invasion with a total war campaign, arming even grade school children and teaching them to attack and wound or kill any soldiers they could find even to the point of their own death.
The invasion of Japan would have caused the war to drag well into the 1950's, some estimates as long as 1955, some even longer.
These would have been civilian casualties as well.
The bombing of Japan ENDED the war early by as much as ten years and saved millions of lives on all sides.

The Imperial Japanese fought a terrible, brutal war complicated by their race hatred of the Chinese, Koreans, IndoChinese, Filipinos and all caucasians. They NEVER displayed the slightest concern for human life since they began the war in the mid 1930's.

mark

[ShortnFiery]

51. "they would have used nukes on us too!" Sounds also like a justification for Torture.

Nice try but no cigar. :eyes:

[Greyhound]

53. Do you doubt that they would have?

I understand your passion, but please consider the war in context.

[ShortnFiery]

57. I graduated in the upper 5% of my Military Science Class and also

gleaned a Regular Army Commission. I've served honorably in the AD Army for four years before I resigned my commission. You can choose to believe or dismiss the foregoing. However, based on my past life experience, I understand warfare.

NUCLEAR WEAPONS will be the end of humanity.

We can argue the efficiency and senseless collateral damage of Arty and Air Raids, etc. all day without consequence.

But IMO - you don't tempt "the Gods" with the use of Nuclear Weapons.

It's one area where there MUST be no compromises lest it mean the end of our species.

[Greyhound]

119. Have you ever been in it?

You want to compare military credentials? Please, I'm not going to go there right now, but suffice it to say that you studied some of the things my family actually did.

That said, you are right about nukes. You are dead wrong if you believe that the Japanese would have hesitated for a minute to nuke us if they could have.

I don't subscribe to any belief in supernatural beings playing with our lives', but too many of us have no clear understanding of the utter devastation that nuclear weapons bring, and maybe that's good.

[old mark]

81. Neither the Imperial Japanese not the Nazie had as humane

an outlook as some people, and there is no doubt they would have used these weapons on any US/European targets they could have.
The use of these weapons was strategic, not recist, and I am stating a case, not advocating any further use of nuclear weapons on or by anyone., so you should read a bit more carefully.
Even with "God" in your corner.

mark

[ShortnFiery]

87. That's why we thank GOD that they didn't have them, but that does NOT give us the right

to use NUKES that if used again could very well mean the end of humanity.

Just because "our enemy" is what you would consider "savage" and "less than human" does NOT give us the right to BOMB THEM INTO THE STONE AGE WITH NUCLEAR WEAPONS.

Also remember that Japan was a homogeneous society. We can bomb Iraq and Afghanistan until the end of time and those natives, not unlike the Vietnamese, will NOT EVER SURRENDER.

Therefore, you must consider the culture of the enemy.

By your logic, Pakistan should just NUKE Afghanistan (specifically Kabul) to quickly end the hostilities in that area.

See how simple it can be when everyone is not HALTED by the threat of Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD).

We all should understand why Iran and everyone else in the ME wants their own Nukes?

[old mark]

189. Because they are religious assholes who want to destroy Israel

becvause their "god" tells them to.

mark

[Stinky The Clown]

59. Some simple things about FDR

He got us through the Depression. Maybe he could have done it sooner, but, contemporaneously, who knew? It was then, like now, uncharted territory.

Much of the reason for the Depression was the same REPUBLICAN bullshit we're once again dealing with today.

Things got better and then got worse again.

The spending of WWII was the real end.

FDR was relentless in working on the issues of the day.

My family has always revered him.

I revere him.

[suston96]

63. Recoveries of economic downturns including depressions take time.....But I remember.....

I was a little boy during the big one. (Yes, I am very old).

One day, in the 1930s, I remember, my father took me by the hand and we went to the local bar. Still holding my hand he went up to the bar and ordered a glass of beer. He plunked down the 5 cents and then he opened the free sandwich cabinet and took out a sandwich. He gave me half.

I remember us being on "relief". That's what welfare was called. I remember my mother getting these khaki socks for us from the relief place, which I refused to wear with my knickers because everybody at school would know we were on relief.

I remember that all lasting until 1940 when my father got a great job at the Brooklyn Navy Yard and during the war his weekly paycheck was up to 100 dollars take home.

I remember that it took time for things to change.

[TexasObserver]

71. FDR's New Deal helped soften the Depression. WWII ended the Depression.

The lesson of WWII is that only unrelenting government debt to finance massive projects can hope to turn the tide of a real Depression. The hard work to feed the war machine is what ultimately turned the country around, so socialism is what saved this democracy, in the 1940s.

And it could have happened sooner, but for the resistance of the GOP to everything FDR did.

[Raskolnik]

75. He may not have "ended" it, but his policies bought the U.S. time to get through it. n/t

[Captain Hilts]

86. As Eleanor said in '40, "it gave us time to think." nt

[Raskolnik]

121. Very true. I think the works programs did a lot to keep fascism from taking root.

Hundreds of thousands of unemployed young men are not going to remain peaceful citizens indefinitely, and putting shovels in their hands helped keep rifles out of them, in my opinion.

[Captain Hilts]

131. The young: CCC, NYA, etc. Artists through federal writing and art projects.

They're the ones that get angry most quickly - young folks and artists. The New Deal bought them off.

[Captain Hilts]

83. Well...that's why they're "right wing assholes" and we're not!

FDR: That's right!
ER: Indeed. I can't imagine being so detached from reality.
FDR: We all need a goal old girl!
ER: Ignorance IS bliss!

[Time for change]

98. He made great progress towards ending it

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x5041094

[Sheets of Easter]

118. WWII definitely ended it, but the New Deal certainly wound it down.

Your synopsis is a pretty darn good one.


These same RW nuts conveniently forget that a number of hard-right conservatives not only offered support to fascist regimes early on, but even conspired to overthrow the FDR administration.

[louis c]

123. Hey, thanks.

I was shocked at the number of replies to this thread. but how did this get to be about Truman?

[Zynx]

203. However, what was WWII but a big government spending program?

[fascisthunter]

130. He Sure DId Much to End it, as Opposed to What Republicans did to CREATE IT!

[DutchLiberal]

174. It's not the right-wing. It's a fact. WWII ended the Depression.

Even the most liberal leftist historian would agree with that. That doesn't take anything away from the fact that the New Deal helped millions of people out of poverty and created equal numbers of jobs. Without the New Deal, many many many more people would have suffered much much much more.

[eppur_se_muova]

191. Well, James Galbraith doesn't agree.

audio, video, transcript all available at Democracy Now:

http://www.democracynow.org/2009/2/10/economist_james_g...

AMY GOODMAN: Professor James Galbraith, something I’ve noticed over these last weeks is this whole debate, sort of re-debating the New Deal and FDR and what it accomplished, and conservatives continually saying that it was not the New Deal that ended the Depression, it was World War II.

JAMES GALBRAITH: Well, first of all, there is a grave understatement in those arguments about what the New Deal actually did. And that understatement is typically because the unemployment figures that many people are accustomed to using for the 1930s don’t count people who actually worked for the New Deal. This is Michael Steele’s distinction between jobs and work. But people who were building the Lincoln Tunnel or the Triborough Bridge or the aircraft carrier Yorktown are counted as work relief and not as employed, and there were many millions of those. And when you put them into the figures, you find that the New Deal actually reduced unemployment from 25 percent in 1933 to about—to less than ten percent in 1936. It went up again in ’37 and then came back down again to about ten percent before the war. So, a major, major improvement in unemployment did occur under the New Deal.

It is true that the war made a major transformation in the economy. It drove unemployment to zero. But it also did something else. It gave the American family, the American household, a financial cushion, which was the war bonds that people accumulated during the war that formed the basis for the financial prosperity of the 1950s and 1960s. And that is what made the—made it possible for the private financial system, which collapsed in 1929, to recover in the 1950s and ’60s. And I think that point is very important, because what it shows you is that when the financial system goes down, as it seems to have gone down in the last couple of years, recovery requires a long time. And the precondition for recovery is not fixing the banks; it’s fixing the balance sheets of the households, the creditworthiness of the American family.

much more at the link.

[varelse]

224. Thanks for this - it's what salvaged this thread for me

and made it worth slogging through all the off-topic flaming upthread :)

[Zynx]

202. Not really. Output was higher than it was in 1929 even prior to the WWII buildup.

It's true that unemployment wasn't as low as it should have been, but to say that the New Deal did not cause a recovery is not true.

A Depression is a protracted period of contraction. That ended by 1933. We had a strong expansion, greater than 6% per year, from 1933 to 1940.

[louis c]

214. The right wing obscures the point with that observation

sure, entering WWII increased spending to well over 100% of GDP and fully employed the workforce in industry and as soldiers. Everyone knows that. The right wing makes the point that it was ONLY WWII that ended the depression. If Roosevelt hadn't come along, many historians believe America would have devolved into chaos and may have emerged as a Communist or Fascist state. They are looking at the thirties through the prism on today. Roosevelt stabilized America so that we could seize the opportunity when it came. His preparation, ultimately saved the nation from almost certain chaos and created a society that could fight and win a world war.

[DutchLiberal]

175. And about saving American democracy: well, yeah, for non-Japanese Americans he did...

[Zynx]

204. With all due respect, you have to weigh the good and the bad. The good outweighs the bad

in a huge way.

[DutchLiberal]

222. I'm not going to reason away FDR's huge civil rights abuses.

[steelmania75]

182. BS If WWII helped us get out of the Depression, then how come the Iraq War....

...hasn't helped our economic growth?

[Uzybone]

200. You cannot even begin to compare

the scope of WW2 to this little shit called the Iraq war.

[verges]

209. Because after 9-11

Bush told us to go shopping. Instead of leading the citizenry in righteous anger at the terrorists, he told us to ignore it and go on as life was before.

WWII geared the entire society to a war footing. Civilian factories changed to Defence factories overnight. You couldn't buy new merchandise. You were encouraged to conserve so that the military could get the supplies it needed to win an all-out war. And that's what it was. An all-out war. Young men disappeared out of towns. A great many enlisted after the attack on Pearl Harbor. Many others were drafted. To finance the war, all Americans were encouraged to purchase War Bonds.

That's why.