“Elementary logic would make it seem clear that the anti-revisionist writers should be grateful to Revisionists for having demonstrated Roosevelts’ responsibility for this great and benign achievement far more definitively and clearly than the anti-revisionists have ever done. By denying his responsibility for what is to interventionists a superlative act of humanitarian statesmanship the anti-revisionists are depriving him of the credit due him for his allegedly comprehensive service to mankind”
That is not a case of elementary logic. There are other matters for consideration. However much some would like to praise his leadership in bringing civilization back to Western Europe and parts of Asia, or whatever, clandestinely conspiring to precipitate war, up to and including allowing ourselves to be attacked, is just wrong.
You see, one can want war, and one can say we waited too long to get into war, without believing any means of entering the war are allowed. Therefore, even if war is what you wanted, the manner by which FDR entered the war is not necessarily justifiable. For most people, it’s not a matter of “by any means possible”. The author of that paragraph knows better. Morality is complex.
But, is it so complex? Is it not rather just whose moral compass applies? That barrel of the gun, for example.
FDR and his War Cabinet deliberately neglected the Pericles model before the Athenian Senate, said one thing akin to "no sons going to war" yet took actions to enter war.
They might better have said ... Hey guys, even while our territory is not at risk - we simply must save the world. We just got too - think of the jobs ... that "giddy minds and foreign quarrels".
So, are morals absolute?
Does not "is" "is" fits nicely here?