Posted on 04/19/2005 4:21:21 AM PDT by bobjam
Last night the History Channel finished its two part series on the presidency of Franklin Roosevelt. Anyone have any thoughts?
I found Eleanor Roosevelt's account of FDR's reaction to the attack on Pearl Harborr verrrrry interesting !
Eleanor said that FDR didn't seem surprised or shocked at all.
She said that he was very serious, but not at all emotional. "Cold as an iceberg" was, I believe, the phrase she used, according to this program.
In 1974 all that was on my mind was baseball and girls, and in that order.
My Fathers family were road contractors in New Jersey during the Depression, they did very well because of their association with Frank Hague of Jersey City.
Hague detested RDR, and FDR considered Hague an Irish thug, but courted him to get his endorsement, the opinion of the Jersey City crowd was the same, "FDR is a goddamn communist,
he's going to ruin this Country with his programs", they also did not believe his song and dance about "keeping America out of war", my Granfather said "they only way out of the mess this idiot has made is war, Hitler must be stopped"
These were all Huson County Democrates, to them voting for a Republican was a mortal sin.
That book looks like a worthy antidote to Zinn's book on American history from the victim's point of view. Unfortunately, Zinn's revisionism is the 18th best-selling American history book in the country and required reading in my kids' high school.
"Can't imagine any left leaning production that would portray him warts and all.. . as they would say Nixon."
If the politically activist capabilities of the media and music businesses in the 60's and 70's were possible in the 30's and 40's, would it have made any difference? With 'participants' seemingly taking their 'marching orders' from a rock-n-roll, TV, youth and drug, hippie/yippie culture, Nixon's legacy was accelerated forward in a same-era concerted effort without the benefit of historical aging, practically overnight in comparison to any super-negative, legacy changing portrayal of the FDR years and the man himself. It's been so long now and there wasn't such a politically predatory media culture back then to make such an impact on FDR's legacy. It is/was 25 years before my time and that's all I can come up with... They probably couldn't pull that one off with an extreme right wing Michael Moore producing.
I've read this, and I don't buy it. The "plan" was a standard plan that everyone knew about---like saying we have a "plan" to invade Iran. Of course we do. Conservatives need to give up the witch hunt of trying to pin Pearl Harbor on FDR and stick to his REAL crimes, which were numerous and devastating.
As usual, when liberals drool over their messiah, there is no mention of things which would really be interesting to know. For example, how much control did he have over his body functions? He had a black manservant who took "care" of him, and often wanted to quit, but he wouldn't let him leave. It would be fascinating to know how much he really had to take care of him because FDR called blacks the "n", which is documented but seldom discussed. Also, was he impotent? Such a ladies man!--or was that just another ego-boosting lie? He knew the concentration camps were a reality in Europe, but he didn't want the US to become a refuge of Jews, for whom he had little respect as a group. And didn't anyone think it was strange that all those people were living in the White House?
The FDR program strongly suggested that it was FDR himself who leaked the plan to go to war to the Chicago Tribune, which published that plan as a front page, headlining article on Dec. 4, 1941.
The program also criticized FDR for his decision to intern Japanese Americans, and pointed out that Eleanor was strongly against that idea. Later, Reagan was credited for denouncing that decision.
I thought it was an interesting and balanced feature that provided insight into FDR's presidency. It was actually more of a hit piece than I expected. One common theme that ran throughout was how FDR made so many decisions on his own, alienating his cabinet and everyone around him. He was much more of a one man show (read Cowboy in today's parlance) than the press of today could stomach. The press back then gave him a pass probably because of his disability.
Would love to know which texts your child is using in the AP class.....
the history channel just buys up bland documentaries.
They ran another special about internment and another about spies in the USA during WWII which said that the japanese interment swept up many of the hidden spies which were living in the USA.
It very well may have PREVENTED some WWII domestic sabotage stuff. But prevention is not sexy.
I find the teacher to be wonderful. During this latest FDR recap, she reminded the students that it is television and may be no more or less accurate than the Simpsons.
Beyond peradventure. But those plans are secret, and the existence of them is an open secret - we don't go around saying out loud that we have, for instance, a plan to invade Mexico or Canada. But I assume that we do.The issue raised by The New Dealers' War was not the existence of the plan but the publication of it. How did it get to the Chicago Tribune (or whatever Chicago paper it broke in)? The investigation of it petered out, nobody - including the prime suspect - paid any price for it. Was that because Roosevelt wasn't vindictive, or was it because the leak suited his purpose and was done at his behest?
We don't know who leaked it, but we do know that FDR had motive and opportunity - and that no one was punished for doing it. To say that FDR didn't do it is an unprovable negative. That doesn't make it false, just because it could never be proven true.
My theory is that journalism is cheap talk. Inherently superficial because of its deadlines. And that the people who are attracted to that profession are superficial. Journalism tends naturally to sensationalism and second-guessing. And politicians can profit by good PR by the simple expedient of being like journalists. Scapegoat and blame-shift, and never lead, and you are a hero to journalists because you are just like them.And I think that that explains the existence of liberals.
And McCarthy was right as well. The communists had spies all the way up the line.
I've known a few journalists over the years - they are the biggest Monday morning QBs, and they hang like a big dark cloud over everyone around them.
That book takes too many twists and turns, conveniently putting in a "must have known" or "surely knew" or "likely was" every time there is a key point to be PROVEN, which is a sure sign of lack of evidence. I destroyed Robert Stinnett's wook---without knowing a shred of decryption information---simply by showing that at every single point where he had to "prove" something, he relied on "mush language" to make his case. Again, conservatives are better off attacking Roosevelt for his real crimes, not conspiracy stuff.
Last I looked, we were RIGHT BEHIND Zinn on the current sales of history titles in the U.S. on Bookscan!!
Note also, that Harry "The Hop" Hopkins - FDR's alter ego - is also present at the time ... from the VENONA project ... ye olde Harry was a Soviet agent.
But no matter ... the many oddities of FDR and the provocations against the Japanese are well known ... except to most Americans!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.