The first person to post gets off easy.
Person #1-Post something positive OR negative about FDR and explain why. FDR is great because...OR FDR is not great because....
Everyone else-Disagree with what the person before you said about FDR OR support it. Next, type something new about FDR...positive OR negative.
Have fun debating...what kind of president/person was FDR?
FDR was great due to his international policy during WWII. He valued the security of America's allies as well as America's citizens. By passing the Lend-Lease Act in 1941, and other actions, Roosevelt provided valuable resources such as food, clothing, and money to nations like Britain. He believed that this was the best way to help allies. Back home, he was able to appeal to the common man by sympathizing with the economic tensions, and making efforts to improve daily life.
ReplyDeleteI DISAGREE with Mohika's interpretation of FDR's supposedly "good" initiative for entering the war. He did not care about the security of America's allies, but only about the security of America's TRADE with the Allies, and how it helped the economy. And by maintaining it, he tried to secure his next term as president.
ReplyDeleteMoreover, Allied corruption pre-dated the outbreak of the war. Germany was a desperate nation and in deep economic crisis due to WW1 consequences, and FDR should've supported their pursuit of what initially belonged to them. Furthermore, his supposed valuing of the security of the soldiers in the war was mere propaganda for the war draft. I can hardly agree that FDR was great due to his international policy during WW2.
I support the post above mine. He was able to take action against the Depression where Hoover was not. He effectively applied his power to support the people in need; he was straight forward and accepted the situation as he faced it. However, many people criticized FDR for his approach with the New Deal. His tax policy was high and argued to have deepened the depression by raising costs of hiring. The destruction of surplus food angered many people as they were starving. These two aspects of FDR's office time proves to be controversial even to this day.
ReplyDelete(this is in response to Mohika)
DeleteFDR might have valued the security of the US' allies but only out of self-serving motives. The Lend-Lease Act stated that it would lend and lease war material to any country vital to the US' defense and essentially gave a blank check to the government to manufacture armaments deemed "necessary" for the defense of the state. This move was seen as an act of economic warfare on Germany, as its primary application was in providing materials for Great Britain. Although the Act could have been seen as a "helping hand" to GB, the biggest resultant of the ACT was to benefit the American economy.
ReplyDeleteFDR's ideology of America first and European affairs second (a sentiment reflected in much of the US), could be seen in another act of his "goodwill"- the "Destroyers for Bases" deal between the US and GB. Agreed upon in September of 1940, the deal would provide 50 US navel destroyers for a 99 year lease for bases in the Caribbean and Atlantic. While the deal was beneficial to GB's war efforts, it was more of a benefit to the US, who received control over islands like Newfoundland and Jamaica, and another example of how the US used the desperation of WWII to its advantage.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI agree with the above statement that America used the desperation of the countries during the Second World War for their advantage. Britain had no choice to accept the "Destroyers for Bases" deal, even when many of the destroyers had defects from being held in reserve in the Atlantic for so long.
DeleteHowever, Roosevelt was only able to do so much before the 1940 election, since at the time, much of America was still pro-Isolationism. Roosevelt dealt with this by transferring Lake-class coast guard cutters to the Navy in 1941, and were much more useful.
A new positive point for Roosevelt (related to Raj's point) is that he was neutral during Germany's "pursuit of what initially belonged to them," in accordance with what most of America supported, which was isolationism, and as America headed to war, FDR was right to support the Allies against Germany's Nazi regime in WWII, providing aid to stop the very regime responsible for the Holocaust, a state-sponsored murder of millions of people.
I disagree that Roosevelt joining the European war was smart. Japan attacked us so there was no point in going over to Europe. We should have focused on the Pacific Theatre.
ReplyDeleteFOR thought that the falling prices were ruining the economy so he orchestrated a mass destruction of excess plants and livestock therefore driving the prices up. He did what he planned to do but he could have given all these plants and meat to the millions starving at the time
It is untrue to say that the United States could have only focused on the Pacific Theater during World War II. As its name implies, World War II was truly a global war. Japan was an Axis power that had allied itself with the Nazis in Germany and the Fascists in Italy. By declaring war on Japan, the United States was also declaring war on the other Axis powers. Even if the United States had wanted to only focus on the Pacific, Japan’s allies would have attacked the United States in Japan’s defense.
ReplyDeleteAlthough it may have seemed counterintuitive for Franklin D. Roosevelt to destroy excess livestock and crops when Americans were starving, his actions actually helped the poor. During the Great Depression, the prices for farm products had decreased drastically from World War I. This was a major cause of the poverty Americans experienced during the depression. Many of the Americans who did not have enough food to eat were rural sharecroppers or tenant farmers. By destroying excess agricultural products, Roosevelt succeeded in raising the price of agricultural prices. This ultimately improved the lives of rural Americans. Reviving the agricultural sector also helped restart the American economy. This helped end the Great Depression and the widespread food shortages. As a good leader, Roosevelt recognized that hard decisions in the short term can reap huge benefits in the long run.
During World War II, Franklin D. Roosevelt accepted and utilized the unprecedented increase in authority and power given to American wartime presidents. Shortly after the United States declared war on the Allied powers, the War Powers Act became law. This act gave Roosevelt the power the censor the news, seize property owned by foreigners, award government contracts without competition, and violate the civil liberties of Americans. By accepting these powers, Roosevelt upheld the precedent that American wartime presidents should be given additional and often sweeping powers. This practice encourages American involvement in conflicts as presidents have much to gain from wars abroad. It is also undemocratic as the system of checks and balances is seriously compromised. Roosevelt’s use of wartime powers during World War II was a negative aspect of his administration.
Sources:
DeleteFaragher, John M., Mari J. Buhle, Daniel Czitrom, and Susan H. Armitage. Out of Many: A History of the American People; AP Edition. Sixth ed. New Jersey: Prentice Hall, 2001. Print.
I would disagree with you that it wasn’t smart for FDR to enter the European war. I don’t really think FDR had a choice but to enter the war when the Germans declared war with him. If you were to blame FDR for entering us into the war with Europe you would have to blame the Lend-Lease Act in which Americans gave war supplies to the allies and how the Americans were attacking German submarines. Both of which I think were completely justified considering Germanys attacks on Europe.
ReplyDeleteNow for your point dealing with the Agricultural Adjustment Act (AAA). It is true that this agency was infamous for throwing out food at a time when people were starving. Yet no matter how cruel this may seem this was the right thing to do. You say that FDR “thought that the falling prices were ruining the economy”, but FDR didn’t just think this; falling prices were ruining the economy. By buying the excess supply from farmers not only did FDR put money in the hands of the farmers but he also lowered the supply which increased the price which made it worthwhile for farmers to produce. Did he really have to destroy it? Yes! If this supply was put back in the market even if it was given to those who were poor it would have lowered the demand for the product which would have simply decreased the prices again. Sometime one must be cruel to be kind and sometimes one must destroy to build.
On March 5, 1940 during the Russian invasion of Poland, Stalin signed an order condemning 21,857 polish military officers to death. This would later be called “The Massacre at Katyn” . Exposed by the Nazis in April 1943, Germany now that it had broken its non-aggressive pack with Russia wished to split her from her allies, and soon both sides blamed each other. Roosevelt dispatched George Earle to find out who had done it. Earle told Roosevelt the truth. It was clearly the Russians. But Roosevelt didn’t want it to be true; it would hurt the public’s image of the war if they thought they were fighting with murderers. So Roosevelt did the political version of asking Earle “are you sure?” and “check again” and again and again. Roosevelt was too willing to not believe the Russians guilt. This becomes worse when you remember that at the end of the war Roosevelt gave over control of Poland to the Russians. Particularly to Stalin, a man who we all remember as being far too willing to kill his own people.
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2010/12/07/fdr-massacre-katyn/
Actually, I wasn't blaming FDR for entering the war but rather responding to Brandt's comment about the Pacific Theater.
DeleteI totally disagree with the statement about Franklin D Roosevelt above. It was his duty as the President of the United States to keep his citizens safe. When he kept asking Earle to go back and check again if the Russians were really to blame he did the right thing. If Americans knew how bad the Russians were they definitely would not have wanted to fight with them. If we did not fight with them than millions of more Jews and victims of Hitler would have died. It was important that Roosevelt kept this information from the American public. After winning the war Roosevelt did not want to make the Russians mad and start a third world war so he was willing to give up some control over Poland in order to protect America and the world.
ReplyDeleteRoosevelt was a very popular president and he had terrific smile and voice that brought joy and comfort to people in a time of need.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI agree with what Grant said that Franklin Roosevelt was a very popular president. He was elected to 4 terms as president and served longer than any other president in American history. He led America not only through the Great Depression but also through WWII. He could relate with the people and this was apparent through his very popular fireside chats in which he addressed the American People directly.
ReplyDeleteA negative aspect of FDR's presidency was that he did absolutely nothing to help the Jews in Europe, even after he learned what Hitler was doing. He then even approved Japanese interment camps in the United States which imprisoned 100s of thousands of Japanese Americans.
The statement "[Franklin Delano Roosevelt] did absolutely nothing to help the Jews in Europe" is frankly untrue. Although many claim that Roosevelt had ignored the mounting evidence of the mass genocide of Jews, the Holocaust, the president did not take action simply because it was not prudent to use the time or resources to do so. In order to have liberated the Nazi concentration camps in Poland and Germany before the end of the war in 1945, Roosevelt would have had to divert valuable soldiers and supplies from the main battlefronts, which may have delayed the end of the war and even stalled the Allied offensive. In fact, by not diverting resources, this hastened about Germany's surrender which then in turn allowed the Allies to free the prisoners of the concentration camps faster than otherwise. Troops sent to the compounds would have been slowed, bogged down by German defenses. Also, Roosevelt actually did take federal action in helping the Jews, as in January 1941 he created the War Refuge Board.
ReplyDeleteHis "New Deal" policy, however, was one negative aspect of FDR's presidential office. During the Great Depression of the 1930's, the president passed a huge number of relief acts, each of which drastically increased the dependence of Americans on the government. Programs like the Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC) or the Social Security Act intended to help those devastated by the ailing economy by offering government sponsored jobs and pensions to those who could not work, but there was an unintended consequence of this enlarged federal presence. When the government suddenly pulled back spending in 1937, this caused a another economic depression called the "Roosevelt Recession", as American workers were still too dependent on federal relief programs to be able to live on their own income.
I disagree as this new deal was necessary to get the country out of a deep economic recession and this next recession was just a minor setback on the road to recovery. One of the biggest things this new deal brought was more confidence to the American people. This made more people able to spend on products but also made them do good jobs on activities including their jobs and support their family.
ReplyDeleteOne positive of FDRs presidency was his help in showing that people with polio can and will live a normal life. We seldomnly saw FDR in his wheel chair and when he was around we could never tell if he was sick or not. This made americans feel secure as well as people of the world with polio that they can be president.
I definitely agree with the post above mine in that Franklin Delano Roosevelt was an important spokesman for people with polio around the world. Not only did he set a vital precedent as the first American president with a severe physical disability, Roosevelt began the Warm Springs Foundation to help others with polio. This is now considered a permanent hydrotherapeutic center by the American Orthopedic Association.
ReplyDeleteI also agree with President Roosevelt's decision to establish and fund the Manhattan Project during his time in office. This project proved critical not only during the course of the war, where it hastened Japanese surrender in the Pacific Ocean, but in changing the face of science at the time. Some argue that the bomb's use against Japan was a colossal waste of life, but had Roosevelt not chosen to research the bomb, it's possible that Germany could have been the first to develop the bomb with the intent of using it against Great Britain or even America. The scientists at Los Alamos also contributed greatly to the knowledge of radioactivity and atomic energy with several discoveries still in use today.
I would disagree with the post above mine. FDR didn't want the citizens of the U.S. to know about his crippling disease. How many pictures exist of FDR in his wheel chair? Why was he always standing when giving a speech? Exactly. He didn't want to appear weak to the general public.
ReplyDeleteI would disagree with FDR's backing of the Manhattan Project and the use of nuclear weapons. I thought it was an irrational, over the top solution to the war. I think that the war was simply an excuse to experiment with nuclear bombs. Why did they have to use the atom bombs at Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Couldn't they have used normal bombs? Exactly.
I disagree about the above post's opinion on the Manhattan project and the dropping of the atomic bomb. I believe that the atomic bomb was a necessary development, given the threat of a German atomic bomb being built and deployed by a ruthless Adolf Hitler. It was also estimated that the planned land invasion of Japan would have cost hundreds of thousands more casualties than the atomic bomb, which proves that the atomic bomb was a more practical way to end the war.
ReplyDeleteA positive thing about FDR was his running for a third and fourth term. This running, along with his eventual reelection, proved as a warning to the American people, that its government was still vulnerable to dictatorship. FDR's third and fourth term caused Congress to pass a modification to the U.S. government, limiting the number of terms a president can serve to two.
I agree about the above statement on the number of terms FDR was elected to. In my opinion, limiting the number of terms a president can receive was an excellent choice by congress. Limiting the number of terms ensures a fresh face and new ideas in the presidency. It brings about change, and while that is not necessarily a good thing, it is still preferably to the same ideas stagnating for very long periods of time.
ReplyDeleteOne very positive thing that FDR implemented was the GI bill. The GI bill was signed in 1944, in an attempt to avoid a repeat of the Bonus March of 1932. The GI bill gave returning servicemen unemployment compensation, low-interest loans, and funding for education. The GI bill completely changed higher education in the U.S.; in 1948, 500,000 students graduated from college, compared to only 160,000 in 1939.
I disagree with the statement above claiming that FDR's running for a third and fourth term was positive in the aspect that it foreshadowed a possible dictatorship. While congress did take initiative to impose a law, stating that a president could only serve a maximum of two terms, it is important to keep in mind that the people of the United States elected Roosevelt into his fourth term, thus implying that they had the desire to keep him in power. A dictatorship, one would agree, is a stance of authority in which either the government or dictator have complete and absolute control over a nation. Roosevelt, as a leader, was far from becoming a dictator, for dictators usually self-impose themselves, meaning they take over the country and government forcefully without as much as taking the public's opinions into consideration.
ReplyDeleteAnother positive aspect of roosevelt's presidency is the manner in which he astutely addressed and dealt with the Great Depression. Unlike Hoover, Roosevelt wisely used his resources at the time to appeal to the general public. The arts and entertainment, for example, played greatly in Roosevelt's favor as he aimed to bring awareness of the needs of those who greatly suffered to the nation. Photography was only one the many mediums that emotionally moved Americans across the nation to partake in Roosevelt's many programs that brought relief.
This comment has been removed by the author.
Deletethis was in response to both Andrew's and Caden's posts
DeleteI strongly agree with the above statement that Roosevelt wisely used his resources to deal with the Great Depression to a greater extent than Hoover did. In addition to using mediums of communication like art and entertainment, he created New Deal organizations and agencies that focused solely on nationwide assistance as opposed to Hoover’s local aid ideas. These organizations were what enabled the US to take the first big leap out of the depressed times.
ReplyDeleteOne major negative aspect of Roosevelt’s presidency was his lack of action and even support for the internment of Japanese-Americans after the attack on Pearl Harbor. This still stands as a sore spot in US history, as forcing these people to camps and taking any civil rights that they had was very obviously a major over reaction. Roosevelt did not imediately attempt to resolve the problem as soon as it had occured.
I agree with Daniel's statement above. It is most definitely a negative side of Roosevelt's presidency that he did not take immediate action, let alone any action, to benefit Japanese Americans. It was immoral to remove certain rights possessed by these citizens in interning them, especially in the uncaring way Roosevelt did so.
ReplyDeleteA plus side to Roosevelt's presidency however was how he revolutionized the position of the government. For many years preceding him, the president had been very removed from the citizens lives and seemed fairly inactive. Roosevelt made it so the government meant something to the American people and actually positively influenced the country. His active approach as president proved to be a very different style, as well as affective. With all of Roosevelt's programs through the New Deal and his fireside chats he left a legacy that Americans will remember.
I agree with David. Roosevelt had a very different connection with american people. He truly cared, and showed it in so many ways. His positive view on the countries people over all helped this country move as one to make it better.
ReplyDeleteI believe a positive thing Roosevelt did was to reach a hand out to the Jews. When FDR died, political analyst Sam Lubell wrote “no group in the nation felt more homeless politically than the Jews.” Dinnerstein notes that most Jews saw FDR as their friend and their champion on a personal level. He was a companion and the Jews saw that he was on their side. I believe FDR's ability to seem so loving and kind was a benefit to him in many ways. His political approach to this war and his allies succeeded to make people see him in a better light. Especially those suffering in the war.
I disagree with the post above me. Roosevelt did very little to help out the Jewish people. And then even after seeing the concentration camps, Roosevelt still organized the Japanese internment camps which was an awful decision.
ReplyDeleteA positive of Roosevelt was his intervention with the economy. Unlike Hoover, who did nothing to try to help the economy recover, Roosevelt did whatever he could to help out the economy. For example, Roosevelt created the CCC in order to create more jobs.
I would have to disagree with Victor. What Hoover was doing was not simply letting the economy run its course with no interference. He was showing faith in the strength of the american people to work themselves out of a bad situation. It's not like they hadn't done it before. If anything, Hoovers only fault was putting too much faith in the american people's resilience. They lost faith in Hoover long before Hoover lost faith in them. Plus, the economy never really got out of the depression until WW2 began for the US, which was forced on us by Japan. We would not have joined the war if we had a choice. FDR can't control what other countries do.
ReplyDeleteI would disagree with Mohika for the same reason he Raj did, Roosevelt was focused on the sole purpose of their trade. He believed it was such an important part of our economy that he wanted to protect it. I believe that Roosevelt had very negatives, obviously, but one of them was his withholding of information about his disease during presidency. Towards the end of his term, he became very ill, and was not serving the american people to the fullest extent that he could. Which is no hit on FDR, but it still should have communicated.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Nick. Roosevelt kept his disease a secret in order to put up a good public face, but in reality he was not capable of adequately doing his job later on in his career. He should have stepped down when that became apparent rather than holding on to his power and jeopardizing the American public. FDR's worst negative in my opinion was his haircut. He could have really helped his image with a fluorescent pink mohawk, connecting to the younger generation and building even more support for his new deal programs.
ReplyDelete