Talk:Franklin D. Roosevelt/Archive 2

FDR and the Depression
"Cured the depression" is fantasy; the 1937-43 depression was worse than the 1929-32, and most probably the result of massive government intrusion into the private economy which stunted growth. The Great Depression never was "cured" See New_Deal. Nobs01 16:20, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The article doesn't say he cured the Depression. Adam 06:08, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Continue reading the New_Deal. What you have is in fact a Depression within the Great Depression  spawned by the aforementioned thesis.  None of these articles articulates that clearly. All (FDR, New Deal, and Great Depression) rather entreat us with the same old POV how grand and glorious it all was. President Truman's Fair Deal was in fact an admission the New Deal had not been fair. Nobs01 18:51, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You are complaining about POV, and then you state as fact that "President Truman's Fair Deal was in fact an admission the New Deal had not been fair"? Are you for real? As for "the 1937-1943 depression," I'd always heard of the "1937-1938 Recession," which was, in fact, not worse than the 1929-1933 one... john k 20:24, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * The 1929-1949 recession had within it another recession from 1937-1943; 1933 to 1937 were recovery years (stimulated by the New Deal, however by 1937 the nation had nowhere near recovered to where it was in 1929. Then the demand stimulated by WWII led to the 1943-1949 recovery, where finally, in comparison terms, the nation had emerged from the 1929-32 crash. And aside, I am not really complaining about POV, personally I think on the face of it anyone can see the contradictions within the articles. Nobs01 21:54, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This is an argument about nothing. The article doesn't claim that the New Deal cured the Depression. In any case the expression "The 1929-1949 recession" shows that you don't know what you are talking about. By 1942 the US had full employment, in fact a labour shortage, and rising living standards even given wartime shortages. Adam 23:46, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * duh, thanks for the help. Point is, record keeping and even economic definitions then where not what they are today.  By using the Dow Jones Industrial Average (which is practically the only measurement available in real time that scans the entire period) the Dow did not get back to the level it was at in 1929 til 1949 (160 pts on the Dow).  And conversely, most people who lived through the entire ordeal will agree, it was not til about 1949 that living standards and peacetime employment returned to something like it was prior to 1929.  As a testament, one can venture into virtually any American city and find a distinct gap in the building and construction trades in the decades of the 30's and 40's where virtually nothing was built except quonset huts, and what was built was either extremely expensive, or built by the government (usually for military purposes).  Again, thanks. Nobs01 00:50, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Economics is not my field, but I recall that the definition of a recession is a certain number of consecutive quarters of negative growth. It think that is a more useful definition than the stock market. By that definition the US was most certainly out of recession by the beginning of fullscale rearmament in about 1940. The use of the word "peacetime" is rather pointless here. A booming wartime economy is still a booming economy, and by 1942 even illiterate black migrants from Alabama were earning good wages in factories in Chicago and Detroit. Of course there was very little construction during the war, because resources were being directed into armaments production. It may be true that some people did not regain their pre-1929 living standards until after 1949, but there were many others (ie, blacks, marginal farmers) who were much better off during the war, when there was full employment and guaranteed markets for farm products, than they had been during the 1920s. Adam 01:00, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Two illustrations: Actual http://www.sharelynx.com/chartsfixed/USDJINDlog.gif and Dow adjusted to constant dollars relative to the price of gold http://www.sharelynx.com/chartsfixed/USDJINDlog.gif. The second chart is probably more accurate vis-a-vis living standards.  See also "during the Great Bear Market from 1929 to 1942...on April 28, 1942, the DJIA was still at only 92.92, 76% below its September 3, 1929, high of 381.17.&#8220;
 * Yes indeed, most of the economic terms we use today were worked out over that period of time. And when wartime production ended, jobs were lost, not to mention the unemployment brought about by demobilization of 3,000,000 returning servicemen.  But America had a new role to play in the world as superpower and the factories were running again by 1950 to keep dad employed while junior went off to get killed in Korea and help the economic recovery continue.  The Keynesian formula had been so successful in the 40's and 50's by the 1960's the policy of perpetual war to keep dad working in the factory while the unemployed where exported via conscription kept the U.S. in boomtimes during the Vietnam war. Nobs01 01:30, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'm not interested in debating with your leftist slogans. It does seem odd that someone who holds such views should place such emphasis on the stock market as an indicator of living standards. This surely is to confuse cause and effect and is very unmarxist. Adam 02:01, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Interesting you should say that. I thought my criticism of Keynesian New Deal economics sounded more like Reagenomic supplyside trickle down economic theory.  In fact the man for whom it was named graduated from Eureka College in 1932 (at the pit of the Depression) with a degree in Economics, idolized FDR, was himself a New Deal Democrat, and in his adult life an eyewitness to the 1929-1949 (new) ordeal.  It is interesting to note that during the boomtimes of 1949-1966 the economic theories of Thomas Malthus reemerged (probably because the planet was minus 55,000,000 human beings after World War II), the Malthusian theorem is patently rejected by pro-growth supply siders whose fundemental premise is population growth and economic growth are invariably unseparable. Nobs01 03:00, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Well, I thought you were a right winger, Nobs01. The Fair Deal quote kind of gave that away, I thought. john k
 * Well it is true that as time went on the popular enthusiasm for the New Deal diminished, as it does for any enterprise. In the Earl Browder article for example, it states Browder supported the New Deal in 1940; this is simply a modern editors writing style cause he couldn't fit it in earlier.  By 1940 New Deal programs were hardly new anymore and the only ones who seemed to have anything positive to say about them where government employees or others who got money out of them.  Of course those who got neither jobs nor money out of it, and those who had to pay those who got money and jobs out of it with higher taxes, didn't think it was very fair. Truman inherited a lot of discontent about New Deal economic policies and didn't run on a New New Deal, but frankly admitted it hadn't been fair to all and promised (or tried) to redress the grievances with a Fair Deal, essentially a New Deal that was "Fair". Nobs01 03:43, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Here's a link that actually works that shows the prosperity of the 1929-1949 New Ordeal ; one can see the Keynsian double dip in 1932 and 1937 (the 1937-1942 recession spanned 5 years unlike the 1929-1932 recession); followed by the classic Malthusian catastrophe evident from 1942 on; then the topping out from 1966 to 1982 with the classic Keynsian model of stagflation; again the classic Keynsian double dip is repeated from 1979-1982. After Keynsianism is rejected by economists ( Friedman, et al ) who lived through these economic theories applied as government policies, and Reaganism is applied, one can see relative growth without the Malthusian catastrophe; in fact, by 1989 roughly 350 million human beings, rather than being exterminated, (see Democide) were in fact liberated from Socialist slavery. Nobs01 16:48, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Well at least we know now where you're coming from politically. I continue to reject your view that the Dow is the ultimate index of economic well-being. That Wall Street didn't like FDR or his programs, and usually does better under Republicans, is hardly surprising, nor an original observation. Adam 23:36, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Not the ultimate index; it is perhaps the best contemporaneous overall index available that spans the time in question. Other indexes didn't exist, or were developed later, often by guess work. For example, unemployment. The 25% figure is just guess work, and that it was probably guessed at based on observations around New York City.  No one knows what it actually was in Arkansas or Oklahoma.  Or Gross output figures (GDP) etc.  But the Dow is uncorrupted by anyone tampering with the figures, and it clearly shows (1) when the country slipped back into recession in 1937 the country was no where near recovery from where it was in 1929; (2) the 1937-1942 five year slide was worse than the three year slide from 1929-1932.  None of these article clearly articulate that.  Most economic analysts agree, the New Deal, while it did benefit some Americans, actually prolonged the Depression. If you cut & paste this http://www.sharelynx.com/chartsfixed/115yeardowgoldratio.gif into the address bar you come close to the real picture. Nobs01 00:35, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * If you consider the Dow a better index, write a letter to your Congressman and ask him or her to introduce legislation mandating that the Commerce Department stop calculating GDP and go on the Dow instead. This is the proper channel for taking action based on your personal theories. An encyclopedia, however, is an inappropriate one. 172 08:27, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Seems another New Deal economist went to China in 1959 and experienced another Malthusian catastrophe there also. Frank Coe, Director of Monetary Research in the United States Department of the Treasury, and later held a high position in the IMF, moved to China in 1958 to work for Mao. The period following his arrival is known in China today as the Three Years of Natural Disasters (seems collectivization has always been the victim of drought, famine, etc). Quoting from the wiki article:
 * The official estimated death toll in this period is about 15 million dead of starvation of total 40 million death

between 1959-1961. Can anyone upload this picture for me. Thnks. Nobs01 18:59, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)Coe with Mao, Adler & Strong.

Here's some good Depression Era charts, close to being contemporaneous (probabably based upon 1958 data). They are a little disappointing in that they only cover the 1920-1940 period. Nobs01 20:10, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

Left Liberals
I removed the term "left-liberals" because. in fact, left liberals hated him because he saved capitalism in America. He was much more of a hero to the more mainstream liberals.User:Morrison1917

Um, the last time I looked liberals are in favour of capitalism. People who oppose capitalism are socialists. Adam 07:31, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Civil Rights and Refugeess
This sentence:
 * a refugee quota of 27,000 German and Austrian Jews per year, at a time when up to 5 million Jews were trying to escape from Europe"

may betray a POV. The subject is the quota on German & Austrian refugees, not "European" refugees, yet the two are linked together. FDR was not responsible for the 1927 Immigration Act that put quotas on Eastern European nations. The two subject perhaps should be separated.Nobs01 15:25, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This extract:
 * Roosevelt also forced several Latin American countries to send their German aliens to internment camps in the United States.
 * is an interesting tidbit, but can the term "forced" be sourced? Nobs01 20:44, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The paragraph about the Germans was imposed on the article by another user, whose name I forget, against my wishes. I don't know if the statements in it are true or not, but I gave up arguing about it. I would be pleased if someone (other than me) deleted it. Adam 00:46, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Well, I'm one that put it in the article. As far as being forced, everything I've read about the subject mentioned that the Latin America countries were forced to send their Germans to the US, but i can't find any info on how they were forced, so you can change that. As far as deleting the whole section, I feel that the violation of the civil rights of up to a million Europeans and European-Americans is rather significant, and is at least worth a couple sentences. But I guess thats just me Morrison1917
 * Well if you can find a source that shows some sort of economic coercion, for example, I'd be very much interested in that; however, the term "forced" could imply violent threat. That's the problem with the word.  We'll give you time to find some reference, cause FDR's Latin American dealings are an important, underrated subject. ThanksNobs01 01:49, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Reverted here to await sourcing:
 * In 1939 he suggested a refugee quota of 27,000 German and Austrian Jews per year, at a time when up to 5 million Jews were trying to escape from Europe.
 * Nobs01 01:53, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Problem with the above is it links two separate subjects as if they were one; as to Latin America, maybe FDR was in bed with United Fruit Company and used economic coercion, i.e. threatened embargos or tariffs to get them to comply with U.S. foreign policy objects. Cursory research provides Aviva Chomsky (eldest daughter of Noam Chomsky) as perhaps an acceptable source. Nobs01 02:17, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Is a work by Aviva Chomsky being given as a source for the statement: "Roosevelt also forced several Latin American countries to send their German aliens to internment camps in the United States"? If so, could we have a link to the work, or a quote from it? I have to say I am skeptical about the factual reliability of anything emanating from the Chomsky family, but I am open to persuasion. Adam 03:08, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Ok, well, I couldn't find exactly how the government "forced" Latin American countries to send their Germans to the camps so I changed it to the less aggressive "persuaded." Like I said, I haven't been able to find any info on what the nature of the "persuasion" was (I would assume it was economically related) so I might just take it out completely eventually. Also, i would like to mention that 56% of all alien internees were European and that many were actually sent back to Germany (including their American spouses and children) during the war in exchange for Americans in Germany and that many were then killed, but I fear some might find that too much for the article. User:Morrison1917

Sources? Are you seriously telling us that US deported American citizens to Nazi Germany in wartime? How exactly could the US deport people to Germany during the war? I will need to see some pretty good evidence for these claims. Adam 07:32, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Morrison: I hope you don't give up on the Latin American research, it could be very valuable; perhaps the word "induced" can still get the meaning across vs voluntary "persuasion". As to the reversion, if you were to lay the premise first (instead of treating it as a conclusion), something of this order:

"At a time when 5 million Jews were seeking emigration from Europe, Roosevelt proposed legislation that...(fill in the blank with proper sourcing)", or "Roosevelt issued an Executive decree that...(again, proper sourcing)". That may be acceptable. Nobs01 16:33, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Adam: Speaking off the cuff, I vaguely recall there may have been humanitarian exchanges through the Red Cross of German citizens, where there was no evidence of subversive or espionage activities, however their political views were suspect; and they were given the choice of internment or deportation. And an exchange could also be considered deportation. Again, speaking of only vague recollections on a subject I haven't considered for many years. Nobs01 16:50, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Coincidentally with some other parallel work I found this from theNational Bureau of Economic Research with a brief extract:
 * The selection of countries to which the Exchange Stabilization Fund extended loans was obviously a political decision, made by the Treasury. Harry Dexter White’s memoranda supporting loans to various countries, attest to his influence on which ones the ESF selected between 1936 and 1944 . The countries included China, Mexico, other Latin American countries, and Russia.
 * "induced" may sound better than suduced, forced, or persuaded, cause there evidently was some quid pro quo.Nobs01 21:45, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * I have no objection to Nobs's rewording of the refugee paragraph.
 * We have yet to see any source for the statement that Germans were transferred from any Latin American country to the US during the war. Unless such source is produced, I intend deleting that statement. Adam 22:27, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Well, theres lots of evidence of Latin American German Aliens being sent to our camps. Check or read "Nazis and Good Neighbors: The United States Campaign against the Germans of Latin America in World War II." Theres a great review of the book by Michaela Hoenicke Moore, Department of History, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill at The book goes into great detail about how and why we interned Latin American Germans. As far as the deportation to Germany during the war i believe that page has info on it and try googling " Eiserloh Family" they're one of the more famous cases and they go into detail on how they were sent back to Germany. User:Morrison1917

In reply:

Thanks for those links. I note that the first link (Ebel) says that there were 60 million Americans of German ancestry during World War II. Of these, she says, 11,000 were interned, or 0.0002%. Your second link, the Moore book review, says that less than 1% of German immigrants (that is, people born in Germany) were interned in the US. Compared to the treatment of the Japanese-Americans, this is trivial, which has been my point all along. Further, Ebel makes it clear that these 11,000 were all German nationals. The US was at war with Nazi Germany, and Germany had active spy networks in the US. Some form of preventive detention of German nationals in those circumstances was perfectly justified, was provided for by law, and was the practice in every country (in Australia, where I live, all enemy aliens without exception were interned for the duration of both world wars, including Jewish refugees from Germany until 1943). No doubt individual injustices were committed. But this does not bear comparison with the mass internment of all people of Japanese descent, regardless of citizenship, in California.

I accept that Ebel is a source for the transfer of German nationals from Latin America to the US. Again, however, the numbers were very small. Your source, Moore, says that 4,000 Germans were transfered to the US, out of 1.5 million Germans in Latin America - where, let us remember, an active Nazi network operated, run by the AO in Germany. The large German communities in Argentina, Chile and Brazil were not touched. These measures applied only to the small Central American states which, in the view of the US, lacked the capacity to deal with the potential threat of German espionage. Again, in the circumstances, this seems to me to be in principle a justifiable action in wartime, however badly it was handled in practice. Bear in mind the crucial strategic importance of the Panama Canal in wartime. Your source Moore criticises the author of the book under review for ignoring the political context of these events, including the fact that at least some of the transferees were indeed Nazis.

I think in sum that these two sources support my case more than yours. I will try to write a more concise paragraph based on these sources - bearing in mind that this is supposed to be a biographical article about FDR, not an article on Treatment of enemy aliens in the United States during World War II.

Adam 11:05, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Its quite clear not all internees were German born, internees included the children of immigrants who were born in the United States, thus citizens, and also naturalized citizens. Quoting Arthur Jacobs, "Then my brother and I - American citizens and children at that - along with our father were thrown into a prison." And as far as the reasons for detaining Latin American Germans, it certainly was nothing so reasonable as hemispheric security, quote, "as late as 1944, Germans were still being apprehended, possibly as fodder for prisoner exchanges. Additionally, Germans in Latin America were interned in the United States, "a wholesale internment that took place under the guise of hemispherical security," Heitmann said, citing Hoover's zeal to build up the bureau and compete with the Office of Strategic Services and later the CIA for jurisdiction over the Western Hemisphere." Which would make sense if one looks at the history of American foreign policy. As far as many Latin American countries not sending their German nationals, its because they refused to, that may be in another article that I forgot to link, I'll read through them again and check. Remember, Japan also had an active spy network in Latin America but we did not intern the large Japanese populations of those same countries (Brazil, Chile, etc.) I believe that it was because it was not economically feasible for these countries to deport their large German immigrant populations (the same reason we didn't intern Hawaii's Japanese population). Certainly it does not compare to the racist and unjustifiable internment of 110,000 Japanese and Japanese-Americans but I think that it should be included because it gives yet another example for Roosevelt's failure to uphold civil rights (especially the treament of immigrants since most resident aliens held during the war were Europeans), which is probably his biggest failure, and the fact that some were actually sent back to Germany during the war, with their American citizen children, is particularly horrific. User:Morrison1917
 * Perhaps the subheading "The Japanese-American issue" should be renamed "Internments", seeing it also deals with German & Italian persons.Nobs01 14:23, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Well I'm sorry, but your own source (Ebel) says they were German nationals. The US citizens were their relatives who chose to go into internment with them, as was clearly the case with Jacobs. This was all very sad, but must be viewed in the context of wartime. Don't you understand what was entailed in fighting a war against Nazi Germany? The democracies were perfectly entitled to defend themselves against potential espionage, and this necessarily required preemptive measures of a kind that would not be acceptable (or legal) in peacetime. As for Latin America, it is absurd to call 4,000 transfers out of 1.5 million Germans "wholesale." This was a trivial and minor incident. Your own source (Moore) says that this "issue" is being driven by left-wing authors of the Chomsky school who want to argue that everything the US has ever done is evil, and has more to do with current US politics (Bush Iraq yadda yadda) than with historical truth. This whole matter merits no more in this article than the passage currently there. If you want to write an article on this topic you are free to do so. Adam 22:46, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

They "chose" to go into the camps with their parents ? They were children ! Jacobs was 11 years old. They were children who's parents were being seized by the government without charge and put into camps. So i don't think they were in a postiotn to make rational decisions and it certainly does not justify it. As far as being deported to Germany Jacobs himself said he had no choice, quote, "my brother and I were expatriated. We were minors and had no choice." They were Americans citizens and thus it was very illegal to deport them to a country they have never even seen before. I truly don't understand why you are attempting to justify this internment. As far as there being "only 4,000 Latin-American German" internees, i said earlier that this is because it was impractical to deport the huge German populations of nations like Brazil, the same reason the Japanese on Hawaii were not interned and there as much of a threat of Japanese espionage and there was of german, but no one accepts that an explaination for the japanese internment. Remember these people WERE NOT arrested, they were interned, there was absolutely no evidence ANY of these people had anything to do with any acts against the United States or had any intention of doing so. I don't care if its not expanded, but you said you would like to delete it completely which i think would be a mistake, because it was a violation of civil rights and it did effect millions of Americans (citizens or not), certainly not a "minor incident." BTW, if you do accept that not all of the interees were aliens i would like to change the article to say "mostly german born" from "all german born"
 * The internment of the Japanese was "race based"; this should be clearly stated.Nobs01 15:15, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Are the Japanese a race unto themselves? Chinese and others of the same Asian race were not interned. It seems that "national origin" was the main basis. -Willmcw 23:29, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

POV fighting
Edit warring is not helpful. I'm not sure I agree with Cognition's assertion that this [|this edit] makes the article more NPOV. Cognition's own admitted bias toward FDR doesn't help his case. I would like to suggest that those with strong emotional involvement take a break from editing here to read WP:POINT. Friday 15:58, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
 * So by that reasoning should Adam Carr stop editing Michael Danby. I think that FDR was a great leader, but does not have anything to do with the merit of my argument that the intro is no place to include every accusation by every FDR-hating historian. Cognition 16:01, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

I am reverting Cognition's edits because I revert all LaRouchist edits, not because I agree or disagree with any particular edit. In this case I disagree with his edits. What historians have said about FDR is a necessary part of the article. The LaRouchists' pretence of admiring FDR as means of smuggling their odious fascist cult into public respectability is particularly disgusting. Adam 16:04, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
 * LaRouche is only a fascist according to Dennis King and Chip Berlet, and all the people parroting them. King and Berlet must have been "stoned" on lots of dope when they were coming to the absurd position that followers of FDR and MLK are "fascists." Cognition 16:11, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

image
The current main image of FDR is a bit blurry around the edges. The fireplace image is okay, but it's not a closeup of the face. Can we get a combination of the two? Perhaps some US government website has free images of former presidents? --Joy &#91;shallot&#93;   00:36, 18 August 2005 (UTC)