Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!
|
 johnm214
 
Registered: 05/31/07
Posts: 14,297
Loc: Americas
|
 FDR and WWII Era US Policy on USSR- How Much Damage Was Done? 
#15758767 - 02/04/12 12:43 AM (3 months, 23 days ago) |
|
|
What do you guys think about US policy towards the USSR (or "Russia" as FDR apparently called the country) during the war? How much of the subsequent problems could have been avoided by rational policy?
The more I look at things, the more it seems like FDR was startlingly incompetent in his dealings with Stalin. Not only was he wrong in just about every perception of the man and the country that he had, but he actively overruled subordinate advice and policy on all things Soviet- constantly rejecting evidence of Soviet duplicity.
Could there have been a free Poland? Is there any excuse for FDR's behavior?
I never learned about these things in school, and I wonder why the public image of FDR doesn't seem to have been tainted by his serious missteps- despite the McCarthy era coming right on the heels of his death. I doubt FDR could have done much worse had he been a paid Kremlin agent.
|
 Seuss
Error: divide byzero
Registered: 04/27/01
Posts: 23,195
Loc: Caribbean
Last seen: 23 minutes, 38 seconds
|
Re: FDR and WWII Era US Policy on USSR- How Much Damage Was Done? [Re: johnm214]
#15758966 - 02/04/12 03:08 AM (3 months, 23 days ago) |
|
|
> Is there any excuse for FDR's behavior?
In my opinion, FDR was one of the worst Presidents in the entire history of the US.
> it seems like FDR was startlingly incompetent in his dealings with Stalin
Was it really incompetence, or did FDR appreciate Stalin's socialist agenda? I've always wondered how much FDR allowed Stalin to get away with based on a common socialist ideology.
> I never learned about these things in school
Of course not. FDR was a hero.
> I wonder why the public image of FDR doesn't seem to have been tainted by his serious missteps-
I'd have to put on my  hat, but I suspect the 'left leaning media bias' has a lot to do with it.
What I find most interesting is comparing Obama's rhetoric to FDR's rhetoric. It is spooky. Almost like Obama pulled the FDR playbook out and is using it word for word.
--------------------
Just another spore in the wind.
|
 zappaisgod
horrid asshole
Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 34,558
Last seen: 10 seconds
|
Re: FDR and WWII Era US Policy on USSR- How Much Damage Was Done? [Re: Seuss]
#15759502 - 02/04/12 08:36 AM (3 months, 23 days ago) |
|
|
How are we to know what FDR would have done at Potsdam? He was dead by then.
--------------------
|
johnm214
Registered: 05/31/07
Posts: 14,297
Loc: Americas
|
Re: FDR and WWII Era US Policy on USSR- How Much Damage Was Done? [Re: zappaisgod]
#15762609 - 02/04/12 10:17 PM (3 months, 22 days ago) |
|
|
k, he was dead by the time the berlin wall was built, so what?
|
zappaisgod
horrid asshole
Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 34,558
Last seen: 10 seconds
|
Re: FDR and WWII Era US Policy on USSR- How Much Damage Was Done? [Re: johnm214]
#15763458 - 02/05/12 07:24 AM (3 months, 22 days ago) |
|
|
He was dead before the Potsdam conference and thus uninvolved in the negotiations to carve up Europe with Stalin getting control of nearly half of it. The Iron Curtain and Berlin Wall were a result of that conference which FDR had absolutely nothing to do with. Because he was dead.
--------------------
|
johnm214
Registered: 05/31/07
Posts: 14,297
Loc: Americas
|
Re: FDR and WWII Era US Policy on USSR- How Much Damage Was Done? [Re: zappaisgod]
#15788854 - 02/10/12 02:26 PM (3 months, 16 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
zappaisgod said:
He was dead before the Potsdam conference and thus uninvolved in the negotiations to carve up Europe with Stalin getting control of nearly half of it. The Iron Curtain and Berlin Wall were a result of that conference which FDR had absolutely nothing to do with. Because he was dead.
FDR opposed Britain's desire for campaigns in Southern Europe, from Italy. Part of Churchill's desire was to prevent the Soviets from gobbling up all that territory- FDR had no sympathy for this view, and actively sided with Stalin to prevent such actions. His view was that if he was "nice" to Stalin, he would win his favor and be nice post-war (a ridiculous strategy opposed by pretty much the entirity of the US diplomatic and intelligence community, as well as the other allies).
- I just have a hunch that Stalin is not that kind of a man
- I think that if I give him everything I possibly can and ask for nothing from him in return, noblesse oblige, he won't try to annex anything and will work with me for a world of democracy and peace.
-FDR
At Yalta, where Stalin was wiretapping FDR (just like in Tehran, due to FDR's negligence), FDR refused to discuss policy with churchill independently in the hope that Stalin would "trust" him as a result. He refused to push for an independent Poland and even when Churchill brought up the matter on very strong terms, he took Stalin's side in opposing any meaningful guarantee of Polish independence. As a result, the only agreement on the issue of polish independence was a symbolic agreement of the USSR to organize the state more democratically.
Throughout these negotiations, and previously, FDR showed a willingness to negotiate on any principle, even when the imperialist UK balked at the suggestion that the lands Hitler had stolen, which led to the whole war, should be turned over to Stalin along with the lands guaranteed to him with his alliance with Hitler. He ensured that Stalin not only got to keep the lands he seized along with Hitler in the very action which started the war, but that he got to keep the lands the Soviet army managed to scramble into before Germany surrendered.
Hell, as Churchill pointed out to Stalin, before Barbarossa, it wasn't clear whether Stalin wouldn't be entering the war on the Nazi side.
How do you suggest the partition of Europe into free and puppet Soviet states had nothing to do with FDR? At Potsdam, and beyond, it was Truman, though inexperienced, who reversed FDR's trust and viewed Stalin with skepticism and mistrust.
|
zappaisgod
horrid asshole
Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 34,558
Last seen: 10 seconds
|
Re: FDR and WWII Era US Policy on USSR- How Much Damage Was Done? [Re: johnm214]
#15789015 - 02/10/12 03:00 PM (3 months, 16 days ago) |
|
|
Since Truman was the man there he is the man who gets the blame. Not that FDR doesn't deserve any but he was fucking dead when the deal went down. Churchill shit the bed, too.
--------------------
|
johnm214
Registered: 05/31/07
Posts: 14,297
Loc: Americas
|
Re: FDR and WWII Era US Policy on USSR- How Much Damage Was Done? [Re: zappaisgod]
#15850983 - 02/23/12 03:41 AM (3 months, 4 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
zappaisgod said:
Since Truman was the man there he is the man who gets the blame. Not that FDR doesn't deserve any but he was fucking dead when the deal went down. Churchill shit the bed, too.
What does it matter whether Truman gets blame or not? I'm talking about FDR, who continued to compromise the security of the US and the allies through negligence, or worse, and who endeavored to give Stalin everything the man wanted and lead to the enslavement of Europe by someone who was guilty of everything the allies found unacceptable in Hitler and Nazi Germany.
My point in replying to you was to challenge your claim that:
>The Iron Curtain and Berlin Wall were a result of that conference which FDR had absolutely nothing to do with
FDR had much to do with the results of the Potsdam conference. Indeed, Stalin wouldn't even have had the defacto control over much of the states that he was able to steal if FDR hadn't have ignored his own staff and cabinet, as well as the UK and other allies, in deciding that Stalin was a man who would work with him for democracy and peace if only he gave him "everything he wanted". Christ, the very reason Churchill rejected the offers of peace with Germany prior to the expected invasion of England, that Hitler couldn't be trusted, was as applicable to Stalin in every respect- as Churchill pointed out repeatedly.
What are you referring to in saying Churchill was to blame as well? What do you think he should have done differently? I don't really have much of an opinion on that, due to lack of knowledge, but at least he opposed FDR's ridiculous policies.
I'm kind of curious, why isn't anyone else interested in this thread? Besides being unflttering to the US, which some posters seem to enjoy discussing, it seems highly relevant to history and the lives of billions of people after the war. I doubt the USSR would have been as much of a problem if they could have been contained, as much of the problems with the allies, NATO, resulted from the political boundries and Stalin-era policies that depended on the proximity and hegemony the Soviets were able to use to threaten Europe/ NATO.
| |
|
|
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Phred, Prisoner#1
203 topic views. 2 members, 4 guests and 0 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Toggle Favorite | Print Topic ]
| | |
|
|
|
Previous
Index
Next
Threaded
Edit 
Reply 
