What Would Liberals Of Today Think Of F.D.R During WWII?

Question

Would they stand behind him or bash him because of the thousands of lives lost?

I love showing the hypocrisy of liberals. It's funny to see the viciousness and hate of these so-called tolerant, compassionate, oh so caring libs.

dk, read what you just wrote, and I'm stupid?? libs are too funny!

Answer 1

Do not even hint that Bush is to be mentioned in the same breath as FDR.....Bush wouldn't make a pimple on FDRs butt.......

Answer 2

Tell you what, go read some primary source material from left leaning and right leaning publications of the time. While leftists like Louis Fischer (an ardent socialist) was calling for the United States to intervene at the time of the Spanish Civil War 1937. Conservatives were busy bashing the "papist" , "communistic" F.D.R. and his New Deal, and emphasizing our good economic ties to Germany. Fascism was just another nationalist movement and it was opposed to communism, so it wasn't so bad.

Just think about it a minute, why are we in Iraq when the greatest threats before and after September 11th were (and most obviously are now) Iran, Israel vs. the Arab world, North Korea, and Pakistan vs. India? All the evidence that has come to light reveals that Iraq could have been dealt with later, and that it would have been weaker, not stronger. Moreover, the current administration knew this. While we all feel warm and fuzzy about Iraqi's people being able to put blue ink on their fingers, keep in mind that F.D.R had the common sense to send our forces where they would be most effective, Bush and his lackeys do not.

That's why I "bash" him, and considering that's the worst that's going to happen to him, also considering how high the stakes are and how royally he messed things up, and don't forget how people still defend him on no other basis than they equate Bush bashing with terrorist appeasment, Bush is getting off easy.

Answer 3

Good question. I asked a similar question, though not in the same wording, about the things that FDR did, that Bush is now being criticized for. For example, the amount of troops lost (which isn't even a tenth, in this war), the bombing of Pearl Harbor (which FDR DID have knowledge that the Japanese were planning an attack, though he didn't know where, when or how, the same way Bush had knowledge that bin Ladin was planning an attack), and the withholding of rights, when FDR sent the Japanese to concentration camps. By holding FDR to the same standards as many hold Bush to, he was a horrible president. However, history shows him in a different light. It's what we PREVENTED by going to war that matters.
No matter how many times the opponents of the war are told how bad things were over there, or that chemical and biological weapons materials were found, or how many mass graves we uncover, or how many hundreds of thousands (actually, I think the number is about two million) Saddam killed, they still won't listen.
But to really answer your question, I don't think they still would have bashed FDR because he was a Democrat, and he never made a point of stating his religious persuasion.
Maybe history will show Bush in a different light. Extreme times call for extreme measures, and he is taking extreme measures. So maybe someday when all the threats that we HAVEN'T been told about are declassified, and all the facts surrounding the war in Iraq come to light (just as the facts about the Holocaust came to light after WWII), maybe then people will understand.

Answer 4

Wow you're stupid. How are WWII and Iraq even close to the same thing. If anything FDR was to cautious as far as that war was concerned. But Hitler had buried all of Europe and a good portion of northern afirca by that time.

That war had a point....this one doesn't. If you were able to use your head for something other then a door stop maybe you could figure that one out.

Answer 5

Suggested reading: "The Conquerors" by Michael Beschloss, called "the nation's best presidential historian" by Newsweek magazine. FDR did little about the Nazi atrocities in Europe until we were attacked at Pearl Harbor. Once America decided to go to war, American lives were primarily in the hands of Generals Eisenhower and McArthur and their subordinates. The vast American death toll was a small fraction of the number of lives lost by the Russians.

Answer 6

FDR was a liberal. Research before you ask retarded questions

then you have people like 'Unclen' who posted above generalizing without thinking as well. Hannity is a great source for unbiased info, huh? Retards.

Libs and Cons. Both about winning and not compromise. It isn't the terrorist that will do us in - it is your inability to see anyone's viewpoint but your own.

I hope you all burn for turning this country into the polarized, hypocritical cesspool it is becoming.

Answer 7

Liberals, I don't know since that is not a political party.

The Democrats would have stood behind him like they stood behind Bush when he went to war with Afgahnistan (since they attacked first).

Would the Republicans today stand behind FDR?

I find it wonderful that even the R's can talk about how great FDR. (Okay so most of them probably think he was one)

Answer 8

Wow, looks like you hit a sore spot with some people, hahaha.

I wonder how'd they react to the whole Japanese internment thing. The worst provisions of the Patriot Act are nothing compared to just rounding people up and shipping them off to camps based on their ethnicity.

Answer 9

FDR played hell getting us into WWII. If it wasn't for the attack on Pearl Harbor and then Germany actually declaring war on us we probably would have sat it out, There was a lot of opposition in this country.

Answer 10

They would criticize him and undermine our troops just like they are doing today...

That was a war against Naziism and Japanese imperialism, both fascist ideologies...

NOW it is Islamic fascism... NO DIFFERENCE!
Liberty Over Liberalism!