Replies

eagleone quoting BJK "That [meaning 1940's economic improvements] helped get FDR reelected for a THIRD term in 1940."

eagleone: "Which has what to do with this discussion?? "

Everything! It's the whole point of this discussion, FRiend.
You wish to mock & belittle FDR by claiming his "real motives" for war were strictly economic -- he hoped through war to increase employment, reduce unemployment and get himself reelected, right?
I merely point out, correctly, that FDR had already been reelected, for a THIRD term in 1940 because most Americans believed the U.S. economy was doing "just fine", certainly by comparison to numbers from, say, 1937.

I'm saying that reducing unemployment was not FDR's ONLY motive for war in 1941.
Indeed, the true economic issue for US war planners was not too much unemployment, but rather whether the U.S. still had enough SLACK capacity to meet all the manpower requirements of a total war?
Turns out we did, but just barely.

eagleone: "You sure seem to be a big fan of FDR....a president who wanted to pack the courts and expanded government massively....beginning to really wonder if you're a conservative."

Nonsense, I've posted already that I'm no fan of any of FDR's New Deal.
He should rather have followed the example set by Republican Presidents Harding & Coolidge, who showed the right way to bring prosperity from economic depression.

But WWII is a very different subject, and there most people & students of the time agree FDR did the best he could have with what he had.
None of the potential alternatives would have produced better results for either the USA or the Western Allies.

So I take it you disagree?

eagleone: " He allowed his buddy Stalin to practically dictate policy in Eastern Europe and much of post war policy in Europe.
Ask the Poles how much help he was to them."

Sure, as I posted before, FDR sacrificed Eastern Europe to the Soviets, for the sake of winning back Western Europe, including West Germany, from the Nazis -- "half a loaf" at the cost of "only" a few hundred thousand US war-deaths.

Any alternatives you might propose would have cost more US dead, or left the Nazis still in power.

Which alternative do you propose?

I'm saying FDR was an opportunistic politician. I believe he would have sold him mom to win an election. He had no qualms in giving Eastern Europe to the Russians. Had he not died there's no telling what he'd given the Russians in the Pacific...half of Japan maybe?

He knew the New Deal had failed and saw an opportunity to boost the economy via the War.

I see again you've moved the narrative from you saying the "economy was doing just fine in 1940" to now the American people believed it was doing "just fine".

You had the wrong numbers on unemployment recall.

Indeed, the true economic issue for US war planners was not too much unemployment, but rather whether the U.S. still had enough SLACK capacity to meet all the manpower requirements of a total war? Turns out we did, but just barely.

Suggest you read this insightful article.

It's titled the 90 Division Gamble.

https://history.army.mil/books/70-7_15.htm

Additionally: During World War II, 49 million men were registered, 36 million classified, and 10 million inducted.[30] 18 and 19 year olds were made liable for induction on November 13, 1942. By late 1942, the Selective Service System moved away from a national lottery to administrative selection by its more than 6,000 local boards.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conscription_in_the_United_States#World_War_II

We had more than enough draftable men for WWII.

I'm really beginning to question your knowledge of the topic.