Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : Let's Talk About Our Feelings!!! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: nihil who wrote (53427)	8/29/1999 12:08:00 PM
From: Zoltan!	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 108807

>>The overeagerness with which the U.S. disarmed and threw away its powerful forces came as no surprise to FDR who had seen Congress and the Republicans destroy the 1916 fleet that Wilson had laid down Boy are you inept. It was FDR who disarmed the US in the 1930's and MacArthur even threatened to resign over the massive budget cuts FDR imposed. MacArthur urged on FDR just the opposite. MacArthur did leave in protest, accepting command in the Philippines. >>What Roosevelt understood -- even in his illness, was that no American or Englishman was willing to fight a ground war to expel the Soviets from Eastern Europe. What FDR and his party understood was to keep power at all costs. His doctors knew he was a dead man and advised that he not make the 1944 race. His party knew it too as they maneuvered Wallace off the ticket in anticipation of his death. FDR died within weeks of his inauguration and his failed Yalta performance. Your hackneyed argument fails completely because the situation was far more extreme in getting US into the war in the first place. Remember, FDR - 1940 election's "peace candidate" and the man who eviscerated the US military with massive cuts post Hoover - lied US into WWII because he could not lead US there. What FDR understood was any means to an end - that was FDR's forte and just shows how sick he was to cede the goals of WWII as detailed in the Atlantic Charter to the totalitarian Soviets. I doubt anyone would concede that a well man, even an FDR, would have ceded all so easily but for his infirmity. No one was more shocked than Stalin was just how sick and easily taken FDR was. >>Yalta was a situation where one had to do as well as someone could. That argument no longer can withstand scrutiny, as historians and you most inadvertently have shown. As historical analysis gets more removed from the partisan politics of the era there is less need to make excuses for a desperately sick man taking advice from a Soviet spy and who by any reasoned judgment had no business being president and detrimentally determining the fates of millions in 1945.