Is President George W Bush Better than FDR

Given President George W Bush recent remarks attacking FDRs 1945 Yalta agreement, I was wondering who here thinks the current president is better than FDR?

Reminder: When FDR first took office, unemployment was 33%, there was no such thing as FDIC to insure banks, and Hitler was threatening world peace. Also note that after the German surrender many American soldiers were redeployed in the Pacific to fight Japan. Also remember when FDR died people turned out by the millions like no other president before or since to pay their respects to FDR all across the country.

RIGA, Latvia 5/8/2005— Second-guessing Franklin D. Roosevelt, President Bush said Saturday the United States played a role in Europe's painful division after World War II — a decision that helped cause "one of the greatest wrongs of history" when the Soviet Union imposed its harsh rule across Central and Eastern Europe.

Bush said the lessons of the past will not be forgotten as the United States tries to spread freedom in the Middle East.

"We will not repeat the mistakes of other generations, appeasing or excusing tyranny, and sacrificing freedom in the vain pursuit of stability," the president said. "We have learned our lesson; no one's liberty is expendable. In the long run, our security and true stability depend on the freedom of others."

Bush singled out the 1945 Yalta agreement signed by Roosevelt in a speech opening a four-day trip focused on Monday's celebration in Moscow of the 60th anniversary of Nazi Germany's defeat.

I do agree with you.

However, when JFK was assassinated, it certainly is debateable that I witnessed many more showed up for Kennedy's funeral. And TV added to the coverage.

there is no comparison between the current state of affairs and WWII. i can't believe he's justifying his current course by second guessing previous presidents. if GWB was president during the cold war, there wouldn't be a world left because the nukes would have gone off on both sides. can you imagine the preemptive strike docterine used against the soviets? and since when is stability vain? if we're really concerned about liberty, there are more pressing matters than iraq. if this was really about saving lives and spreading democracy and all the other so called important issues the tiff over in iraq is about, we'd be eyeing africa. a good point was made in another thread about lack of women's rights in saudia arabia.

i think comparing presidents is a rather difficult task because times change. it is hard to say what people would have done differently during different times, but their attitudes sure say a lot about themselves. that said, i can't imagine a worse president than bush in past or present (maybe jackson). just my opinion. i can live with repubs in office like gov romney in MA despite my being against him being elected. he certainly hasn't done anything that has set MA backwards and has done a few okay things. i disagree with everything GWB says and does, i couldn't think of many politicans i disagree with more. despite disagreement, what really sets GWB apart from other presidents and politicians in my mind is his ability to make so many people the world over hate him. in vietnam, the united states rallied against the war. with iraq, the whole world was pissed off and showed it.

where was all this talk (and more importantly action) about freedom and democracy throughout the world before 9/11? i can't even begin to imagine how things would be different today if that tragic incident had never occured.

Dubya is absolutely correct - the Yalta decision was made as a political expedient and as a bone to Stalin because by early 1945 the Soviet army was not only parked in all of the former free Baltic states, but Poland, Hungary, and all of the Balkans as well. FDR was doing what he needed to do to enlist the Soviet Union as an ally in the final push to defeat Japan, and Stalin wanted his ass kissed on the world stage by the American President and he got it. What was FDR going to say - get out? And don't get me wrong - FDR was and still is an American icon. He was not only a great President, but a great human being. He did what he had to do to end the war. However, the effect was allowing the Soviet army and government to occupy all of eastern Europe for 50 years. If you were a Latvian in 1945, what would you think of the decision?

You liberals should study some history and geography before reflexively pounding on Dubya.....

You liberals should study some history and geography before reflexively pounding on Dubya.....

Click to expand...

liberal is such a dirty word, i much prefer progressive.

ChileMass, i recognize the perfect hindsight of such a decision, but we'll never know the alternative version of history which may have been worse than what in reality happened just as much as it could have been better in the long run. i still am outraged of the thought that the current recent events in the middle east are being compared as such to seem as a justification.

additionally, our current president believes in never compromising for the bigger picture. for better or worse, most of our best politicians throughout the years have compromised for the bigger picture. sometimes you do have to take a hit to push things in a positive direction. maybe that was too big of a sacrifice back then in hind sight, but my point is that strong arming every situation is a short term strategy that begets bad feelings.

ChileMass said:

FDR was and still is an American icon. He was not only a great President, but a great human being. He did what he had to do to end the war. However, the effect was allowing the Soviet army and government to occupy all of eastern Europe for 50 years. If you were a Latvian in 1945, what would you think of the decision?

Click to expand...

ChileMass I agree with your comment here. The eastern countries under Soviet rule made one hell of a sacrifice. Note FDR needed Stalin's help to defeat Japan. Without the atomic bomb the resources estimated to defeat Japan was HUGE. Also note that Stalin was left in charge of doing all the hand to hand street fighting in Germany which meant the Soviets lost many 1000s of their soldiers after the German surrender. United States could not be doing that plus wining the war in the Pacific. Its possible we could have lost to Japan. Remember Japan was bombing Western states but nobody knew about the success of those bombs including Japan.

If FDR knew that the atomic bomb would put a quick end to the war with Japan, then Monday morning quarterbacking here, FDR should have never gave away so much to Stalin. FDR did not know this of course. The war with Japan had the potential to kill 10s of 1000s of more American troops and put an even bigger strain on Americans here at home.

Last year I was in Europe for a few weeks on business. I had the opportunity to work with a man from East Germany. He was a very young boy during WWII and grew up under Soviet rule. He told me about the sacrifices he made to get his first Soviet made used car, which he said were junk. He told me about dating his wife for the first time and taking her out in his car. All very familiar to American lives except for huge sacrifices he made. You share a few beers and you learn a lot about how difficult their lives were under Soviet rule.

To sit and Monday morning quarterback FDRs decisions, I think is just wrong.

ChileMass said:

You liberals should study some history and geography before reflexively pounding on Dubya.....

Click to expand...

I'm liberal... And I believe I'm pretty well read and know geography very well...
Not sure I appreciate the generalizations coming from you and the rest of your ilk.. Painting me as some sort uninformed automiton.

I think FDR did what he had to... Bush does what he wants to... And sticks to his guns... Cause it's hard work.. Actually Bush is the one who needs to "study some history and geography before reflexively" sending our soldiers into harms way..

I agree that FDR did what was necessary given the politics at the time, the man also gave the ultimate sacrifice for his country. The sheer physical strain of his office appointment killed him in the end.

Could/would this country elect a president again today with as debilitating an illness as FDR's polio was?? I'ts amazing what measures were taken to hide this fact from the American public. Out of all the photographs ever taken of the man, only two show him wearing leg braces or in a wheelchair.

I am German/Polish, and both of my parents suffered terribly during/after the war. My uncle was born on November 16th, 1944 in occupied Poland. My grandmother had enough foresight to flee with the retreating German army to Checkoslavakia, and she always said that the Germans were bad, but the Russians occupation will be more severe.

In hindsight the Russians did also want the eastern block countries as a barrier to any future potential threat from a new Germany. I am not sure that this is true or just BS. I traveled across Checkpoint Charlie into East Berlin on July 3rd, 1989, just a few months before the end of the DDR. I must say that I really felt sad for the people of East Berlin, as they lived in a country that was fenced in from the Baltic Coast all the way down to Checkoslavakia/Hungary.

I will say that after crossing back into West Berlin, freedom NEVER EVER felt so good.

They hide GWB's mental handicap well too..

Except when he has to talk unscripted... Then it's funny...

Nookular... hee hee...

DMC:

Did you ever visit www.jibjab.com and look at the cartoon called "this land"?. My wife nearly fell of of her chair when she saw it. Especially the "nuclear" part.

loafer89 said:

DMC:

Did you ever visit www.jibjab.com and look at the cartoon called "this land"?. My wife nearly fell of of her chair when she saw it. Especially the "nuclear" part.

Click to expand...

Yup... JibJab rules..

By Yalta, Churchill was ready for war with Stalin and FDR wanted/needed WW II over...I believe the BIG THREE made the correct choice...the eventual agreement caused our world leaders to work out peace without continuing WW II... it's the world leaders since then that we should be grading...

Lastly, I find that GWB is no FDR.

What do you think of Harry Truman? Thankfully he had the foresight to see the threat that the soviets posed.

loafer89 said:

What do you think of Harry Truman? Thankfully he had the foresight to see the threat that the soviets posed.

Click to expand...

Based on the books I've read, it was apparent that by the end of WW II, all World Leaders realized that Stalin was no better or worse than Adolph...but now he had an army and airforce that could run over the rest of Europe and probably Asia...pacifying Stalin and not irritating him (as Churchill was) in 1945 was most important...

After 1945 though, Stalin was acting the superpower he thought the Soviet Union was...Churchill was out of office...there was only Truman to stand up to Stalin...the Berlin Airlift work...I believe Truman did a good job...

Only one nation has used a nuclear weapon on another nation...Truman made the call...was it right or wrong? Did we save the US lives our War Department estimated it would take to defeat Japan? The BOMB was used to end a war...not begin a new one...and not to prove a political point.

Overall, in the nearly eight years he served as President, I believe Truman served our nation well...it was tough to follow 12-years of FDR and be seen as a success.

Well, since FDR has been dead for more than 1/2 century I think it's almost a toss up as to who would be a better president now. While I'm not for exhuming FDR or anything, I'd have to give the edge to FDR - though Bush would be better at the meet and greet kind of stuff.

Seriously, I wonder if Bush and his buddies are trying to attack the reputation of FDR - he certainly has been looking for ways to dismantle much of the New Deal.

It's obviously very difficult to compare presidents b/c they all served under quite different circumstances. (I never liked comparing athletes of different eras either.) It's even more difficult when hindsight gives us such an advantage over presidents like FDR and Truman. That being said...
FDR served during an incredible time in our history--from the Depression to WWII. It seems apparent that much of the credit should be due to him, although it could be argued that the war effort bailed him out by spurring on the economy and general patriotism. There's also the issue of whether or not he knew about Pearl Harbor beforehand. Either way, history would seem to exonerate him, but can you imagine the political bungle had a 21st-century-style media known about it then?
As for Yalta, it's hard to disagree with FDR's decision to appease Stalin, given that the world was weary of war. On the other hand, Patton wanted to march through Berlin and straight to Moscow. By ending WWII by appeasing Stalin, they inadvertantly created WWIII--the Cold War, which was responsible for Eastern Europe, Vietnam, Korea, Afghanistan, and much more. How much Monday-morning quarterbacking can we do here? How much did they bow to political pressure to end the war? How much could they have foreseen the Cold War? Hard to tell.
While I certainly won't defend Bush, at least not everything about him, I think we'd do well to recognize that he has an enormously difficult job. In the post-9/11 era, nobody really knows what to do. Anybody who thinks otherwise is greatly oversimplifying. I think Bush honestly believes that America, as an institution, has a purpose in world history. Maybe, maybe not, but it helps to understand his decision-making when you consider our involvement in past wars. This is an interesting article: http://www.papillonsartpalace.com/ameriismcan.htm . I don't necessarily agree, but it's thought-provoking. Some would even argue that America's role (in a very teleological worldview of history) has been first to vanquish fascism (WWII), then communism (Cold War), and now terrorism (post-9/11), in order that democracy might flourish. In such light, it's more understandable why he's full speed ahead on involving the US in the middle-East.
To be practically in front of the cameras 24/7/365 is unbelievable. I think we can forgive an occasional misspeak. Anybody who can balance foreign complexities with an increasingly diverse domestic agenda can't be dumb. Bush isn't dumb. Clinton isn't dumb. It is just useless to regress our political debate to name-calling.
Okay, this is getting long. It's obviously between skiing and hiking seasons...

As far as Yalta - it's hard to know. If you compare the casualty figures for German troops on the Western front vs. the Eastern front - and Russian casualties vs. German, you'll understand how much force and power Russia weilded in Europe. It's also important to understand how much support the communists had in Europe - not just in the states the Soviet Union wanted hegemony over, but in Western Europe. The Marshall plan was, in part, a plan to shore up the economies and societies of Western Europe to keep them from becoming communist.

It's impossible to know what would have happened if not for Yalta. Would the successful use of the A-bomb have guaranteed US victory? Would the Soviet Union have prooved too vast despite the advantage of the bomb, and would their international supporters have proven too powerful? Would communist revolutions have succeeded in places that they did not given Yalta? Would US resources have been stretched to thin?

Should the US have seized the advantages the bomb gave them later on, despite Yalta? No one can know.

It is odd to me that Bush is repenting Yalta, but not repenting any of the other tyrannies we have tolerated or even nurtured, especially the anti-communist ones.

As for deploying the bomb, I have gradually shifted my opinions. Given the huge cost of taking Okinawa, and the massing Japanese defenses - an invasion would likely have cost more Japanese lives and more damage to Japan, than did the bombs - not to mention the extreme loss of American lives - which, in war time, have to be considered more carefully than enemy lives. Even though the Soviet Union had promised to enter the Pacific War by August 15 - it's not clear they would have done so before they felt Japan had already received a death blow (I have to admit, I am fuzzy on the reasons they gave for wanting to wait until then).
Once I accepted the bombing of Hiroshima, I still doubted the wisdom of the bombing of Nagasaki. However it is clear to me that there was a strong faction within Japan who wanted to fight on even after the Nagasaki bomb - and which would not accept an unconditional surrender. This faction was even stronger before the Nagasaki bomb - as there was doubt that America could produce another blast of that magnitude. There was no international taboo against atomic weapons at the time. Now, the violation and subsequent weakening of such a taboo would have to be added to the costs of using and A-bomb, but not at the time. The more I've learned, the less reason I've had to disagree with these decisions - until I've finally had to conclude that they were reasonable under the circumstances and may well have, even with the benefit of hindsight, been the wisest course of action.

After 911 I was all for us nuking ToraBora to kill Bin Laden...

Something I would've never considered before 911...

very well put, pedxing. especially:

There was no international taboo against atomic weapons at the time. Now, the violation and subsequent weakening of such a taboo would have to be added to the costs of using and A-bomb, but not at the time. The more I've learned, the less reason I've had to disagree with these decisions - until I've finally had to conclude that they were reasonable under the circumstances and may well have, even with the benefit of hindsight, been the wisest course of action.

Click to expand...

i have mixed feelings regarding the dropping the a-bomb back then. one must consistantly remind oneself that in regards to weapons of mass destruction, we are the only country to use one to date. it set a dangerous precident of an arms race and a world in which every country that wants to be "big time" needs to have nukes. it's the very reason we're having issues with a country like korea right now (okay, there are other reasons, but this is a big one). how can we deny other countries nukes when we have stock piles of them? we're holding guns to dangerous countries in the world and expecting them not to draw a weapon.

however that said, if we didn't drop the first one, who know who would have. it was only a matter of time before someone else (likely russia) implemented the technology and dropped one or more. in the end, history likely took the best course in the hard rationization that the bomb was dropped to save lives in the long run. pity the lives lost were civilians vs. the lives saved of soldiers. but the bombs certainly did end the japan issue in short order.

the major issues with the WWII were the fire bombings. i've read plenty of sources regarding fire bombing cities with no strategic reason and destroying whole cities and many civilian lives. at least the nukes had a strategic goal which was accomplished.

dmc, not sure how dropping a nuke to kill bin laden would have been a good thing. the idea of dropping nukes any where in the world is a horrible idea. last thing we need is to provide further justification to the world that nukes should ever be deployed. the environmental damage and damage to innocent people, plants, and animals is beyond measure. lets go after those responsible for 9/11, but do so reasonably and with as best pin point accuracy as possible. whats the saying? close only counts in horse shoes and hand gernades and h-bombs? :|

For a bunch of hikers, skiers & outdoor enthusiasts... this is an interesting dialogue...when can we expect Stephan to… :wink: