Obama Follows FDR on ‘Flexibility’ with Russia


Pages: 1 2

Hoover faults Roosevelt for goading the Japanese into an avoidable war. He faults Roosevelt for a lack of preparedness that led more than 2,300 American deaths at Pearl Harbor but just 68 Japanese. He faults Roosevelt for not allowing the two great dictators in Germany and Russia to destroy one another. He quotes Admiral Chester Nimitz and General Curtis LeMay to convey that the dropping of atomic bombs on a Japan that had already sued for peace was unnecessary. He castigates his successor for marketing the war as a fight for democracy only to abandon Eastern Europe, China, North Korea, and points beyond to the Communists in the war’s aftermath “The din of propaganda had led the American people to believe in the [Atlantic] Charter as the emancipation proclamation of mankind,” Hoover notes. “The shock to our people of the long-delayed discovery of their betrayal by the Communists (and others) did much to contribute to the makings of the cold war.”

It is on this last point that the president-author writes most passionately. His is a counter history to even the prevailing counter histories in that it finds the sellout of Eastern Europe at the wartime summit at Tehran rather than at Yalta. “These ‘two great commitments’ were the instrument by which fifteen peoples fell under the control of the Communists,” Hoover writes of Churchill and Roosevelt’s acquiescence at Tehran in Stalin’s annexation of seven peoples who had lived under the Russian Empire and dominion over a handful of puppet buffer states. “The complete confirmation that these commitments were made at Tehran is evidenced by Stalin’s immediate action. He began to move even before the German retreat from eastern Europe. There is no recorded protest from Messrs. Roosevelt or Churchill.” Indeed, Hoover cites government documents and firsthand accounts demonstrating the complicity of both wartime leaders in appeasing Stalin in a manner far more groveling than Chamberlain’s appeasement of Hitler. Neither appeasement guaranteed in peace in our time.

The presidency makes hell of one’s principles. Hoover entered the White House a progressive’s progressive and departed it denounced as a laissez faire capitalist. Given the more than doubling of top marginal tax rates, a proto-New Deal that introduced alphabet soup agencies to America, and the beginnings of massive federal public works projects, the “laissez faire” tag is unfair—when talking about Herbert Hoover the president. But Herbert Hoover the citizen transformed into something akin to what his critics had assailed him as: a conservative. Cognizant that he had become a caricature, Hoover wrote Freedom Betrayed in an awkward style that suggests he understood that by him saying what clearly wished to say the reader would immediately consider the source. So, he quotes, and quotes, and quotes. This insecurity makes the book more like a trip to an archive. Hoover here is less the author than a guide through the words of others.

The reader learns, but about the subject or its author? Freedom Betrayed offers insight into Herbert Hoover as well as Franklin Roosevelt.

Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: Click here.

Pages: 1 2

  • Amused

    Flynn , yu would attack anyone or anything American , if they disagreed in anyway from your narrowminded skewed conservative point of view . And here in your article you prove yourself no better than those perrenial detractors of the US who criticize the dropping of the atomic bomb on Japan to end WW2 ,
    You're a disgrace . and like your fellows would tear down America so long as conservatives are the last ones styanding . Your kind of thinking brought this country to the edge of default most recently . So for those like you it is revisionism and IGNORANCE that play into your pathetic repertoire of screeds , accusations and aspersions , even to the denigration of your own country so long as it props up your partisan agenda . What will you do next ? Slander those who died on the Normandy Beaches ? Your artyicle turns my stomach ….shame on you .

    • reader

      "Your kind of thinking brought this country to the edge of default most recently"

      It's actually moochers that brought this country to the edge of default. FDR was the king of moochers. Obama is another one.

      • Amused

        Oh look , another moron steps to the fore .

  • John C. Davidson

    This is a lot more serious than what FDR did. I believe this administration is looking to join a Global sociolist movement. For us to engage in side arguments, we're missing the main point.

  • http://www.numbersusa.com/content/ First_One

    FDR like his wife and now Obama were/are communists!

  • Amused

    You wanna embrace your I hate Obama diatribes , that 's fine , however in order to facilitate your own sick views of anyone Democratic you attack FDR , and Trumans decision to drop the A-Bomb . What a bunch of pathetic skells . FDR got the country through the Dpression , and most of the War , and now we have wet behind the ears PUNKS , that would put down their accomplishments for the sake of a narrowminded "screw everyone else but us " mentality and politik . Like I said " What's next " ? You schmucks are gonna start putting down the Greatest Generation that did in Fact save the world in WW2 ?
    What a bunch of pathetic miscreants !! What a bunch of total assssholes !

    • reader

      "FDR got the country through the Dpression"

      That's exactly right. He did drag the entire country through the Depression, which, according to his own Treasury Secretary Morgenthau, he did not do a squat to drag the country out of.

      • Amused

        You're full of shiiit reader , in addition to knowing nothing of those times .

        • Chris Nichols

          So, you don't know who Henry Morgenthau was, or what he said, or about economics in general.

        • reader

          You think that you know more about those times than Henry Morgenthau or Milton Friedman? I think not.

          • Amused

            It seems BOTH YOU and Nichols are talking out your opposite end , in that the Depression was well underway BEFORE FDR took office . In fact it wasn't even the fault of Hoover who got voted out .

          • reader

            Not if you're read Friedman's Monetary History of the US, it wasn't.

      • http://www.numbersusa.com/content/ First_One

        reader:

        You are correct, FDR took a recession with approximately 6% unemployment and turned it into a depression with about 25% unemployment. That is progress, or should I say "progressive"! I have observed that the "screw everyone else but us " mentality is right out of the Obama Chicago thug politician handbook! On a different note, Truman may have been one of the last halfway decent Democrats to hold high office, they are few and far between.

    • fiddler

      Wow how "amusing" you appear.

      Let me quote from one of your OWN left wing bumper stickers that I saw during Bush:

      "Dissent IS patriotic"

      I'm sure you have PLENTY of other invectives to dish out; the left LIVES by ad hominem!

      • Amused

        You have no idea if I'm left or right fiddler , so stop talking like the ignorant assshole that you present yourself to be . Dissent is indeed Patriotic .AttackingFDR and this nations 's policies circa post depression and WW2 , for the sake of of your narrowminded and skewed world view , is more than unpatriotic and traitorous , it's simply stupid , and reflects the mindset of most repocons who have set examples of their own stupidity by accussing the Girl Scouts of America of being lesbians and commies ….how childish , how stu[pid , how pathetic you numbskulls are .
        P>S?> if objectiveobservation describes your ilk as the idiots you appear to be …if that's to be copnsidered :ad hominem " ? SO BE IT . JACKASSSSS .

  • fiddler

    Methinks the article struck a tender nerve with the amusing one. Could it be that this whisper campaign caused some people to think twice about the president's TRUE motives? Is it his "right" to level the playing field militarily by making hush-hush deals with Russia?

    Who does he govern? Or, does he really care?

    • Amused

      YOU "thinks" with your butt instead of your head . I could care less what Obama's motives are , you can have your little snowstorm over hisa remarks to Medvedev , people with brains know he cant push anything through in the way of missle defense without the House or Congress knowing about it . If you want to hide under your toilet and worry about that shiiit that's your call /.
      I take EXCEPTION to denigrating FDR , accusing him of being a commie , I take EXCEPTION to second guessing and criticizing Truman's decision to use the A-BOMB .So get your head out from up your butt and read what I say , not what you "try to read into what I say " . FDR wasn't "flexible " with Russia , the Soviets signed a pact with Hiltler , then Hitler doublecrossed Stalin, in effect opening an Eastern Front which was to the advantage of the Allies. The circumstyances presented themselves to FDR , he did not create them , and he acted pragmatically . He should be criticised by a bunch of punks today , who were not even born yet .
      Thaty's my beef , so pay attention .

      • reader

        " FDR wasn't "flexible " with Russia , the Soviets signed a pact with Hiltler , then Hitler doublecrossed Stalin, in effect opening an Eastern Front which was to the advantage of the Allies"

        Not so fast, the i-know-it-all-not. It just happens that about 40 years ago late Antony Sutton discovered a secret agreement between Roosevelt and Stalin – illegally bypassing Congress – to exchange sensitive intelligence. This agreement was signed in 1938 – well before Hitler would doublecross Stalin, and it was never disclosed. Write this down: State Department file 800.51 W 89. USSR/247.

        • Amused

          I suggest you stick your nose elsewhere other than novels written by disgruntled Republicans , yes the same bullshiit was going on back then the blame game for the depression , hoovers supporters vs FDR's . Lend lease supplied both the Soviets AND Britain .And was no secret , and as gfar as any sharing of intelligence , especilly in those times , such things remained not in the public domain but in the corridors of the OSS ands FBI . Just as with Obama today a Democrat , FDR in the eyes of Republicans was everything from traitor , communist to Bolshevik sympathizer . The pissing contest has been goping on for quite sometime . But if many of you hairbrained sycophants would actually read the laws and acts leislated by FDR's Administrations you would find surprisingly that they reflect many of your own conservative views on sp[ending , budgets etc .But unfortyunately for most of you here that would require objectivity , a thing that you are MOST incapable of .
          So keep on reading your novels .

          • reader

            This is not a novel, zombie. This is a file containing the State Department memo written by Ambassador Joseph Davies on January 17, 1939, and everybody can review this file invoking the Freedom of Information statute. Or you can stick your head where it's always been and where the sun does not shine and keep spewing insults to make yourself feel better.

          • Amused

            And BTW , the Soviet /German non-aggression pact was signed in 1939 . And your spin , which obviously comes from the spin in several novels is what I'm disputing , for it is the same partisan shiit slinging that you engage in today . As for your big secret , I guess it wasn't so secret huh ? not to mention things of that sort would not in any way have to pass any Congressional or House muster . All in all just another example of repocons making opinion as fact . The fact being intelligence was shared / the opinion is what the motives could have been from your narrow partisan point of view .

          • reader

            So, barring the pact with Hitler, Stalin would be ok to get into a deal with in secret from the Congress? I bet, this is exactly what Obama is thinking too. But there're two problems. One, FDR had been briefed daily on what went on in the world, and he would have known Stalin to be a rutheless mass murderer and a war monger, using the "progressive language". Two, it was illegal.

          • Amused

            In the late 30's it was apparent to all that the nazi juggernaut was well underway , and the actions of the Reich proved it .To support the Soviets [communists ] the then arch enemy of the nazi regime was indeed pragmatic .Lend Lease in your thinking then , should also have been "illegal " , so AGAIN your spin takes precedence over the facts on the ground in those times …..just as the motive of this article .
            " I'LL BET THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT OBAMA IS THINKING TOO …." oh really ? You bet ? save your money reader , for that is the game republicans have been playing since Obama's election win . Inserting your spin on what someone else is thinking as FACT , totally presumptious, void of any real fact , and completely self serving partisan bullshiit .

          • reader

            "In the late 30's it was apparent to all that the nazi juggernaut was well underway , and the actions of the Reich proved it"

            And what exactly the commie juggermaut and Stalin's actions proved? Apparently nothing, for as long as you are progressive. Yet, the fact is that in the 30s Stalin not only murdered many more people, they also amassed much more in terms of military assets.

            "To support the Soviets [communists ] the then arch enemy of the nazi regime was indeed pragmatic"

            Really? So, how was it pragmatic getting in bed with the guy, who performed a lovely switcheroo in the Far East, and, instead of him fighting the Japanese in the 30's, he'd made you fight them?

          • http://www.numbersusa.com/content/ First_One

            reader:

            Good post. The relationship between Hitler and Stalin is an interesting study in its self. Both hated and were suspicious of each other, but yet each was also envious of the other. The USSR at the time was of course much larger in territory, had more resources and manpower; on the other hand Germany was much more advanced in weapons and tactics. Stalin knew that he would need over 300, (Yes, 300) divisions just to stop a German advance and also needed war materials that he did not have! Hitler wanted to neutralize Stalin to carry out his plans in Eastern Europe. It should be noted that each was going to attack the other, Hitler went first.

          • reader

            "The USSR at the time was of course much larger in territory, had more resources and manpower; on the other hand Germany was much more advanced in weapons and tactics"

            Not quite. Tactics, yes. Weapons – no. By June 1941 RKKA had 5 to 6 fold advantage in tanks, artillery and air-craft. The RKKA tanks and artillery were also more advanced at the time compared to those of Wehrmacht. There were some problems with munitions and air-craft fuel, but not to the extent explaining disasterous RKKA collapse under Wehrmacht attack. RKKA simply fell apart, abandoning equipment and surrendering en mass. You see, a lot of materials describing all this were burried for years; but they started to surface in the 90s.

          • http://www.numbersusa.com/content/ First_One

            reader:

            Thank you, I had the understanding that in 1939, (when the pact was signed) that the German weapons were better then the Soviet and that one of the things that Stalin wanted was some of the German artillery.

        • http://www.numbersusa.com/content/ First_One

          reader:

          Interesting post, thank you for the State Department info. I am not at all surprised by FDR's actions, the recognition of the USSR, release of Russian, (as opposed to Soviet), money in American Banks to the Bolshevik regime, and subsequent infiltration of the United States is well established. A few items of interest: First; Hitler; aka Germany, started negotiation on economic and military agreements with Stalin, aka USSR, just after the German occupation of Czechoslovakia in 1938. The economic deal was made first and critical supplies for the German war machine started to flow into Germany, the military pact was signed just before the invasion of Poland. Secondly; an objective analysis of this era clearly shows that WW2 was a battle between "National Socialism" and "International Socialism", freedom, democracy or liberty were the big losers, one only has to look at the number of country's enslaved throughout the world by 1950. Furthermore; the death toll of socialism by the end of the 20th century was somewhere between 100,000,000 and 250,000,000 people!

  • Ghostwriter

    I have a few problems with this,starting with how President Hoover would have reacted to what the Japanese were doing in China. I'm not going to fault FDR for siding with the Chinese as they were being slaughtered by the Japanese military. I have no idea how Hoover would have handled what was going on in Asia at the time and I'm not going to speculate. I'm also not going to fault Truman for dropping the atom bomb on Japan. The Japanese were NEVER going to surrender unless forced to. The atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki,while sad events,should be laid squarely at the door of the Japanese government who refused to surrender when even THEY knew that the war was lost.
    From what I've read of some of your quotes,Hoover seemed awfully bitter about being voted out of office. I think that book may be a reflection of some of that bitterness.

    • http://www.numbersusa.com/content/ First_One

      Ghostwriter:

      Good post. With respect to China I think that Hoover would have reflected the general opinion of the American people at the time; i.e. avoid entanglements, akin to modern Ron Paul philosophy. Our involvement in WW1 was a disaster and unnecessary! The Japanese question is a tough one to answer. I respect both positions, but "…Admiral Chester Nimitz and General Curtis LeMay to convey that the dropping of atomic bombs on a Japan that had already sued for peace was unnecessary." were in the theater of war at the time. But I also tend to agree with Truman on this one.

  • Westie

    Hoover's book is a must read and would be interesting in comparison with the Venona Files. Other Democrats that collaborated with Soviet Russia included Teddy Kennedy and Jimmy Carter both of whom asked the Soviets to support their Presidential elections. I hope that one day we will actually have justice against these Leftist Traitors.