common sense that Truman and his rapidly anti-communist advisors lacked. contributing to the start of the Cold War. I think it often goes unremarked that Soviet and US intelligence both said the other power didn't really have any designs to destroy each other at the end of the war. right up until the mutual paranoia started to mount in the final months of the war with the Japan Situation. Truman and his council wanted to wall up the Soviets out of fear of communism, and Stalin wanted to head south to build buffers and shore up communists in Asia.
@@kazmark_gl8652 It would have been nice if Comrade Stalin had shored up Communists to fight against Japanese instead of having them collaborate with them & making the USA carry the load single handedly in the Pacific
@@sgabig maybe I missed something, but the history I know is that after dealing with the Germans the soviets started a large campaign against the Japanese on mainland south east asia specifically Mongolia and Manchuria. While both Chinese factions resisted heavily the Japanese invasion.
Churchill, an avid anti-communist, said that if Hitler invaded Hell he would say good things about the devil when questioned about allying with Stalin (of course he was also quick to warn about what Stalin intended at the end of the war).
Churchill was a colonialist who tried approaching stalin behind roosevelt’s back on how to split up post war europe. With fdr, who made churchill sign the atlantic charter, gone, and truman dropping the bomb, what happened is simple dominos. Read “as he saw it”.
Churchill knew the time to defeat the Communists was 1917 not 1941. Save the Tsar and enact a regime of the White Russians . Churchill bemoaned the lost opportunity in stopping communism before Stalin took power.
@@sofialoppe6255 Your information is from the Joe McCarthy anti Democratic Witch Hunt where most people from FDR'S administration were smeared and accused of Communism or of knowing a Communist or being related to a Communist as if that was a crime. Particularly as they were our Allies during WW2. Total hysteria with very little actual meat.
I think this lady is great , well spoken, educated, sensible and interesting to listen to. I would love to sit down and talk history with her some day , I've never heard of her prior to your video collaborations together but I am quickly becoming a fan of hers
@@sydneydwoskin4950Just go to the link at the bottom of the screen where the short is initiated. It will take you directly to a 2 1/2 hour interview.❤ Enjoy
@@tephveritas1750 Correct. Did she mention the allies were helping to arm Hitler before the war? Then they helped arm Stalin and Russia to defeat Hitler and after the Germans surrendered they gave Stalin most of Eastern Europe freely even though most of Easter Europe did what they could to assist the allies defeat Hitler. Those two men created, promoted the war, helped end it and created the cold war afterwards. She also fails to mention had the Japanese NOT attacked Pearl Harbour USA would never have entered the war? THAT was the ONLY reason USA entered ww2 at all. They made heaps before entering the war and far more after the war. WW2 was stage managed until the final solution became apparent and Japan attacked USA.
@@BrinnerDang As far as I have heard from her, she NEVER speaks to the actual hidden hands that influence all of history from behind the scenes, the same hidden hands to which all rulers (Presidents, Prime Ministers, Governors, etc.) are beholden. If you don't understand the influence and control by the Vatican, the Jesuits, the Free Masons, the Zionist Jews, etc.; you do not understand history. It's akin to watching a sporting event thinking the game is played fairly unaware that the refs are paid off by a group (hidden hand) that has already determined the outcome of the game. The game is merely played to keep the slaves distracted and controlled.
@@BrinnerDang As I described above. In another video, she claims Britain "helped America crack the Enigma code." That is so far from anything even approximating truth I wouldn't trust anything that she says.
@@terryt2728 Not to take anything away from her, bu there are thousands of people-professional historians and political scientists-with her level of knowledge and expertise. I'm sure she would agree. She's particularly good at answering leading questions very clearly, but again that's not too rare.
@@terryt2728 Maybe you could just look up her credentials rather than asking SM. In any event, here is why people seem to want to listen to her. Education: Paine graduated magna cum laude from Harvard University in 1979 with a B.A. in Latin American studies. She spent ten years acquiring her Ph.D. in Russian and Chinese history at Columbia University, which included five years of research and language study in China, Taiwan, Russia, Japan, and Australia. She has received two Title VIII fellowships from the Hoover Institution, two Fulbright fellowships, and other fellowships from Japan, Taiwan, and Australia. She began her career at the Naval War College as an associate professor starting in 2000 and is now a professor of history and grand strategy. Author Japan caught between maritime and continental imperialism, in Hal Brands, The Makers of Modern Strategy: From the Ancient World to the Digital Age (Princeton University Press, 2023, pages 415-439). The Japanese Empire: Grand Strategy from the Meiji Restoration to the Pacific War (Cambridge University Press, 2017). The Wars for Asia 1911-1949 (Cambridge University Press, 2012). 2012 Winner of the PROSE award for European & World History and longlisted for the Lionel Gelber prize. The Sino-Japanese War of 1894-1895: Perceptions, Power, and Primacy (Cambridge University Press, 2003). Imperial Rivals: China, Russia, and Their Disputed Frontier, 1858-1924 (M.E. Sharpe, 1996). Winner of the 1997 Barbara Jelavich Book Prize. Co-author with Bruce A. Elleman: Modern China: Continuity and Change, 1644 to the Present Editor: Nation Building, State Building and Economic Development: Case Studies and Comparisons (M.E. Sharpe, 2010). Co-editor with Bruce A. Elleman: Naval Power and Expeditionary Warfare: Peripheral Campaigns and New Theatres of Naval Warfare (Routledge, 2011). Naval Coalition Warfare: From the Napoleonic War to Operation Iraqi Freedom (Routledge, 2008). Naval Blockades and Seapower: Strategies and Counter-Strategies 1805-2005 (Routledge, 2006) Currently she is a professor of strategy and policy at the U.S. Naval War College in Newport, Rhode Island. Is that enough qualifications or do you require something more?
“Failure to be anti-communist enough” what a ridiculous way to phrase that. He succeeded in maintaining good diplomatic relations with the USSR by treating them like an equal.
She's also biased. Roosevelt was also a cause of WWII. Not because of his preparations, but because of HIS actions in the build up. He froze Japanese assets. Cut off their oil. Put all kinds of economic sanctions on them. Interfered with their international policies. He WANTED WAR. So, sure, he prepared the US for war, but let's not pretend he was some innocent. He is the first President to push American down the Imperial, Pax Americana path.
Everything she says is completely obvious to everyone who's read a book. She does not impress me at all, though maybe because its all the softball questions.
@@1987retromancan you tell us where you got your degree in WW2 history? Perhaps even WW1 history to give us context as to how WW2 came about. Also, where did you earn your degree? Here in the states? You are so sure of yourself to tell the world online how much smarter you are than this learned woman. That's usually the sign of a weak man with an inferiority complex. Surely you would know these signs from history. Pompous @ss!
I can listen to her talk all day. Common sense is so rare in our political elite. The words of the politicians today are so dumbed down and ridiculous. Her words are like a breath of fresh air.
To win their elections (and to give to the organization of parties in order to get committee seats in order to actually do something), they have to get big political contributions. Those contributions don't come from us, they come from rich people who want to make even more money at the expense of us... Basically kickbacks in exchange for things that move money from non-rich people to rich people (such as taxes on income but not on inheritance). After this, they have to win elections and get our votes, which normally we give out for basically the inverse of this. Both sides can't be true at the same time because they are the logical contrary of each other: either they have to lie to the rich people, or they have to lie to us. We've literally built a system where they have to lie no matter what. In contrast, this lady's income comes, as far as I know, from teaching, so of course she tells the truth plain as day.
That is because much of the electorate has no interest in common sense. The just want to have their existing beliefs reinforced. If she was talking about stuff that is happening now, half these comments would be nasty ad-hominem attacks -- either from the right or the left.
Don't they understand the concept of having your current enemy and potential future enemy deplete each others strength, reducing your own losses considerably. The support for the USSR was to ensure they were able to stay in the fight, if the USSR lost or made a separate peace deal, then the western allies would have to deal with the Axis alone.
Russia backed us up in the revolutionary and civil wars. They were building the transiberian railway as we built our transcontinental, which were purposed to a connect via alaska under an assassinated mckinley. Russia is our enemy, wtf? You’re a british puppet.
That happened. The problem was the rest of europe, was toast as well. The soviets did not really invade they just stayed where they were after the war ended and made sure the groups that were favorable to them took over the eastern European countries.
@@merlin5662it's a superficial irony - you can draw many similarities between people, but the meaningful difference is that one group of allies was defending against invaders, while the other group of allies was composed of the aggressors. In Hitler's case it was external, immediate & obvious. In Stalin's case it was internal & not so obvious. Was it ultimately a mistake to ally with Stalin? We know we couldn't fight both of them. We know we couldn't afford the war to go on much longer. Stalin ultimately slaughtered more people - but only because Hitler was stopped & Stalin wasn't. It really looks like we had to choose between what was at the time the lesser of 2 evils
@@domusardet4961 I would argue it's the other way around. If you know anything about soviet foreign policy, you would know that stalin wanted allies in order to build a strong USSR during the 20s and 30s. However the west saw it differently and diplomatically isolated the USSR (even during appeasement Hitler was tolerated to balance stalin in east Europe). As much as people say stalin and Hitler were buddies for the pact I would argue that stalin was being pragmatic to delay nazi invasion of Hence my comment But on a different note I find people who call stalin evil solely BC he killed more people than Hitler very surface level analysis. I would argue the Hitler was the worse of the two BC he has policies specifically targeting Jews and the extermination of the Jewish race while stalin policies (arguably) unintended killed many Ukrainians during the holodomor and locked political prisoners that seemingly opposed him (he was extremely paranoid about internal external threats to the USSR). That isn't to say he is exempt from scrutiny, but logically speaking stalin made poor judgements that led to good and bad outcomes
@@BradSanders-lr1sxThe Russian bot with a 2 month old UA-cam account is complaining about "drunks". That's some major league projection, Svetlana. lol
This woman is brilliant, and such a delight to listen to. Lucid, so well spoken, she has clearly spent years learning about and digesting more history of war than I can even imagine. Our naval college is privileged to have her.
This woman has such great knowledge and communicates it so clearly. She feels like a history version of Carl Sagan, calm, knowledgeable, and pleasant to listen to.
This has actually nothing to do with FDR's historic, documented softness for the soviets, which she failed to adress. There are several instances in which FDR gave extreme lenience to stalin, one reason being "the man, the way he's treated poorly by other western nations, like the english, we ought to give the man and his ideas some consideration."
I think the communist sympathiser accusation came from the Yalta Conference where FDR effectively conceded Poland to the USSR. The accusations were popular amongst Polish and other European immigrants.
Yeah bc FDR totally should have sent the American troops to fight in Eastern Europe after defeating the Third Reich. That wouldn't have been a disaster...
Did you forget that he had the Communist Spy living in the White House (Harry Hopkins) and his entire State Department was staffed with known Communists proven by the Venona Papers? Yea, FDR sold out most of Europe to Stalin.
@@samlee3039look up Operation Unthinkable. It was unthinkable for a reason. If USA had UK had declared war against USSR at that point of time then Soviet Tanks would have ended up at English Channel.
The notion that the allies should have antagonized the USSR while fighting the Germans is silly. All they could do was prepare knowing the the USSR was fundamentally different on an ideological level and that it would likely be an enemy later on. In fact, the push to end the war in the Pacific as quickly as possible (not just Truman dropping the nukes, but the aggression of the final years of the campaign in general) can be seen as trying to defeat Japan without the Soviets to minimize Stalin’s “claim” to the Pacific. Japan was resource-starved, on the defensive, and in decline. The U.S. COULD have waited around and let the Japanese sink more resources into fighting the Soviets in China instead of pushing so aggressively in the Pacific. But we didn’t. And as a result of our island-hopping and later use of nukes against Japan effectively boxed the USSR and their eastern sphere of influence into mainland Asia. There was no partition of Japan or substantial Soviet presence in the pacific, giving the U.S. naval superiority in the Pacific after the war. The USSR’s land grabs in WW2 were mostly confined to Eastern Europe, and even then, it was vital in dividing Germany’s attention and to be honest, NOBODY but the USSR and their ruthless meatgrinder tactics could have pushed the Germans so far back so quickly. The sheer scale of the Soviets’ wall of quantity-over quality tanks and overwhelming numbers spanning across the continent played a vital role in depleting Germany’s capacity to wage war. Their campaign was brutal, costly, and ugly even by WW2 standards, but it was extremely effective.
So the very single act to limit soviet power and influence happened after FDR died and that's your excuse for saying nothing more could've been done? The soviets were in an existential war, the US giving into every demand and giving them anything we could was not necessary. I have to wonder, where did you pick up this view of the war? Was it from a biased source or are you personally a leftist?
Listening to her at length on these videos is as interesting and enthralling a woman in a suit in a beige room can be! Your explanation for people like me, take into account stuff I have never considered. I could listen for hours. Great perspective!!
He had Henery Wallace as his VP in 1940. He also had Harry Hopkins - the former was a great admirer of the CCCP while the latter was believed to be a 'red'.
I'm sure it has happened then. But as a guy who loves history, I've never heard of this argument against FDR about the Soviets getting land because he was a sympathizer. What a load of crap. FDR took a pragmatic approach. Which is fairly obvious to see with hindsight. Just like the lady said in a more detail.
FDR's domestic policies and the people in the US he chose to associate with already make conservatives suspicious that he was a communist sympathizer, and he made some very questionable concessions at Yalta that helped the Soviets gain a stranglehold over Eastern Europe. Regarding Yalta, keep in mind that: 1) By that point in the war the US GDP alone exceeded that of Germany, the USSR, and Japan combined. 2) Western forces were already well established in continental Europe. 3) Consequently, by this point in the war, the "don't piss off your allies" argument no longer held water (if it ever did). Stalin had little to offer and little that he could threaten. That said, I understand that the interviewee is associated with the Naval War College or something like that, so I wouldn't expect her to really comment much on that: 1) Serving members of the military aren't supposed to get involved in politics and have to be very careful of what they say even when the party they favor is in power. 2) If her political views incline her to make the kind of argument I advanced above, she would have to be extra careful because we've just spent 4 years under the most aggressively leftist administration we've had since FDR, in a political environment where political prosecutions are more acceptable than they've been since the Civil War (if not more than ever). 3) On account of 2), it's probably more likely than average at the moment that a random member of the NWC faculty will be left of center.
Actually he had some kind of weird man crush on Stalin. See Montefiore "In the court of the red Tsar". This sentiment is reflected in Roosevelt’s quote: “I think that if I give him everything I possibly can and ask nothing from him in return, noblesse oblige, he won’t try to annex anything and will work with me for a world of democracy and peace.”
Maxim 29. "The enemy of my enemy is my enemy's enemy. No more. No less." The fact that we had a common enemy didn't make us friends, it meant that we could work together, temporarily. Both the West and the USSR were already planning for the next potential war against each other even as they fought Germany.
FDR put the Soviet Union in the position that they bore the brunt of fighting the germans. The Soviets lost millions, and we lost a fraction of that. So they had a bit more post-war clout than we would have preferred, but yet they had paid the highest cost in blood
@@tantuce the Soviet Union was in the same situation that Russia is now with ukraine. When the conflict started in both cases, yes, poorly equipped. Poor logistics, poor manufacturing, low arsenals. But by the end of the war, they were making almost as many fighter planes, tanks and trucks as we were. Same thing with ukraine. Russia was not prepared to fight a war, but they have had to ramp up their manufacturing and military industrial base to keep up with the Western weapons flowing into ukraine. Now, they are a much more formidable fighting force than they were two or three years ago. So we didn't actually we can rush, we've made them stronger
Russia signed a friendship treaty with Germany with a secret codicil -- a treaty which divided the countries between them between the two. Russia deserved what it got as a result of that treaty, and never deserved the help it got.
Not to take away from Dwarkesh Patel (just discovered his podcasts, instantly subscribed) but I also never heard of Sarah Paine either.. would she consider visiting other podcasts such as JRE or Lex Fridmen?
In June 1941, Hitler astonished the world again by invading Germany's nominal ally Russia, turning it into an ally of Britain. Churchill, a long-time anti-communist, remarked, "If Hitler invaded Hell, I would make at least a favourable reference of the Devil in the House of Commons."
@@romangilyard8529 No? There was never any alliance treaties formed. They partitioned a country together under an agreement, that does not constitute an alliance.
@@romangilyard8529 Poland and Nazis invaded Czechoslovakia together 💀. Did that make them allies? Britain was the only country that supported the Nazi annexation of Sudetenland 💀, when Stalin was ready to help any country militarily that would resist the Nazis. Does that make the Britain and Nazis allies? Your wh0re queen Elizabeth, her sister, her uncle and aunt were openly Nazis. Does that make them Nazi allies? oh wait....
@fen3311 Please look up the Kama tank school, the Lipetsk fighter-pilot school, the 1940 German-Soviet Commercial Agreement, and the 1939 German-Soviet Credit Agreement.
you guarantee? well Churchill knew Stalin would be a useful ally against Nazis. but he was not fooled by the USSR or Stalin. Roosevelt was! the Democrats were fanboys of the USSR ...
@@coling3957 Um… FDR gave a speech during his 1936 reelection campaign where he told a group of Italian-Americans that his economic policies were inspired by Mussolini and the US government was constantly on the lookout for Soviet collusion before, during and after the war; idk about FDR so much, but Truman was outwardly hostile to Soviet and Marxist interests for his whole administration (in some ways even more than Eisenhower but in most ways probably less); plus if he was rly a communist sympathizer as u say then idk why ppl like Nixon thought so highly of him (Nixon also thought very highly of Johnson and even ppl like Reagan who were convinced that Johnson was a red-blooded commie despite his rabid aggression against Ho Chi Minh looked to FDR as a favorable model of reasonable big government Democrats, worth mentioning that neither of these two were gullible idiots by any stretch of the imagination)
This is what I love about learning, studying, & majoring in history -> there is always a lie that hides a truth of these historical events. Perspective, expandable research than just on one resource, & also have a sense of revisionism play a role to expose & have better a understand of our world than just a normal textbook.
@@SoniakaDeeD. It was a question asked from a conspiracy theory POV, though. It wasn't one, but it was trying to test the validity of one. She deftly dismissed it brilliantly, though...
@@hotdog9262 I'd say it is a dumb question, considering Nazi Germany and their Italian and Japanese teammates were literally trying to kill us at the time, and this was all happening before the Soviets set up puppet states to hold Eastern Europe for those many decades...
@@hotdog9262 Yes it is! What happened to Eastern Europe after WWII had nothing to do with FDR! You Americans always think your leaders make all the decisions!
@@hotdog9262 Ofcourse it is..FDR was mildly progressive, was socially conservative and from an upperclass family and lavished in his wealth. Only in America can communism even be discussed in regards to such a man.
Being anti-communist doesn't make sense back then. There was a study that revealed, the years shortly after 1945. That a lot of people recognized that the USSR truly won the war. More than people do now, who add USA & UK involved in the war. Britain had an underclass of workers that was almost fully communist. They sort of operated like an oligarchy, completely independent of their population.
@@fastcourse01 the US won the war not the USSR ussr was just warm bodies using American industrial might - you don’t even know what lend lease is lmao Plus the pacific was almost entirely the USA commies are never intelligent
Roosevelt confiscated gold from the American population. Like what world are you living in thinking the guy who passed the New Deal is somehow pro Capitalist? Lol
@@ricojra7670Fdr praised fascism and Mussolini. Vladimir Lenin considers Mussolini to be one of the best leaders of the leftists movement. Mussolini and Hitlers mistake was trying to create a new political ideology when the east and west already established their spotZ
@@theskeptic3214lenin praised Mussolini in 1912 when he was a socialist and sent support to the Italian socialist party after Mussolini had split from them. Don’t confuse that with him being sympathetic to fascists. He absolutely wasn’t. Not to mention the fact Mussolini spent much of his time in power hunting down socialists.
@@andrewwilson9183 are you ignorant to the multiple attempted fascist overthrows on the U.S.? they are ideologically opposed to us and would've meddled with us more than the USSR did on top of multiple extinct races
Actually she didn't. The notion of the German Army being an unstoppable mechanized entity is purely a myth. The Germans were heavily dependent on horses throughout the entire war. Simply put, Germany lacked the industrial capacity to fully mechanize its armed forces. Even the backwards Soviet Union possessed an industrial capacity that exceeded Nazi Germany's by leaps & bounds. And during the latter stages of the war, the Germans had to rely on slave labor to make the equipment for their military forces.
Has anyone watched "Europa The Last Battle"? There is a lot of information about FDR, and Churchill that certainly gives a different perspective than the one we all learned in History classes. 🤔
I used to live in Warm Springs. The actual climate of the area is almost frozen in time. The Springs are still open, I had a surgery in the only hospital (54 bed hospital), the Little White House is still open for visitors and the ink spill that occurred when Franklin Delano Roosevelt died is STILL on the original carpet.
Nah pretty sure they were equally evil, Stalin just liked to limit his evil to mostly killing people in the Soviet Union also had a lot longer to run up his kill count.
If you wanna look at just total death counts, like how many people they murdered, it would certainly seem that way. But, looking at ideology? Eh, not really. Both were very much evil however Stalin was much more savory of an ally compared to Hitler. Hitler's racial policies made loads of people uncomfortable with him having as much power as he did, even amongst American racists as hypocritical as that sounds.
As Churchill, a staunch anticommunist, once said early in the war, "If Hitler invaded hell I would make at least a favorable reference to the devil in the House of Commons”.
It would be a blatant lie to ignore the fact that FDR did have legitimate communist sympathies and there were genuine communists in government under FDR.
Socialist sympathies, perhaps. But I think it's a mistake to say the man who sympathized with the plight of the working class and labor unions had any love for communism as exemplified by the USSR.
Interesting. She puts it in the context of the isolationists/americafirsters as being wrong as opposed to FDR. Wasn't it FDR and the Kennedys that were so enamored of Mussolini? Was he preparing for war because he knew that his policies had failed completely? I mean when in doubt as a failed leader create a war. It's not as though that concept hasn't been used over and over again. And furthermore, weren't the Soviets aligned with the Germans to carve up Poland/Eastern Europe? As bad as the German national socialist yes socialist one more time socialist workers party was... Wasn't Stalin equally, if not significantly more, murderous towards any number of minorities and their own people? The best that could be said is that FDR/Allies options posed quite the conundrum... The Nazis were truly terrible, and not knowing the future, how could they have known that the equally terrible Soviets were going to turn out to be even worse in the long run? See the effects of international communism throughout Eastern Europe, Southeast Asia, the Middle East, all of Africa, most of Central America and most of South America for more information. If her position is one of a moral absolute in that we must deal with the evil that is the Germans then she would be left in a position that Patton was correct and we should have immediately turned around and taken out Stalin and the Soviets. Unless of course her moral protestations are surface level only.
No demonstratably not true. The Russians were a nation that was quite backwards in tech and social cohesion. Germany was an enemy in control of all the might of industrialised Europe minus the UK. The threat of a German controlled Europe would be orders of magnitude greater than the Soviets.
Are you trying to insinuate that the nazis were left wing because of the name? You know north korea's name is democratic people's republic of korea, so they must be democratic right? And also you are attributing the problems im middle east and south america and in many other global south regions to communism as opposed to what the us's capitalist imperialism along with the earlier colonial european powers did?
No, FDR was preparing for war because he saw the growing threat of fascism in Europe. His policies did not fail but that is a topic for another day. When FDR began preparing for war by, among other things, pushing for and eventually signing the Selective Training and Service Act of 1940, France had already fallen and Britain was all alone currently embroiled in the Battle of Britain. Nazi Germany and fascism as a whole was an ideological threat to Roosevelt and a much more practical foreign policy threat due to our innate alliance with Britain and France. While Joseph Kennedy Sr's obsession with fascism is something that I cannot argue with because he was literally a fascist and tried to initiate a coup against FDR, FDR's admiration of Mussolini is often misinterpreted. FDR was not enamored by Mussolini because he was a fascist. He hated Mussolini's authoritarianism just as he did Hitlers. He admired Mussolini for his Great Depression era economic policies, specifically using Italy's budget surplus to pay wages and ensure businesses did not close their doors. And also, indeed Stalin was just as murderous toward his own people in terms of his policies, but fascism was seen at the time as a greater threat to the western powers. Not just ideologically speaking but also in regards to political and military power. Both the USSR and Nazi Germany are not the ideological friends of the western powers, seeing as both are opposed to fundamental tenants like liberal democracy, the Nazis were seen as a far greater ideological threat to the U.S under FDR due to specifically their racial policies. The Soviets were the much more savory allies and despite the existence of the Molotov Ribbentrop Pact, the allies knew that was not going to last because the Soviets and the Nazis spent the last decade criticizing each other.
@@taiwandxt6493 sounds like an interesting narrative you got there. Sounds pretty much like everything the federal government, our state funded schools, the MSM, and state-funded Marxist academics have been proselytizing at us for years. Certainly that is a ringing endorsement of the ideas. It's kind of like the those who consistently listen to what a leader or a state says and then are surprised when they do it. Take Putin for instance. Yes I find his methods and his background repugnant and concerning. But it's not as though he and the people of Russia were not clear. NATO in Ukraine is a red line. And here we are. In the same light, make all the excuses you'd like for FDR, he supported and lionized Mussolini. Just like people understood that the German national socialist yes socialist one more time a socialist workers party was an invention of the left prior to the war. And they did exactly what they said they were going to do. So the fact that the Molotov Ribbentrop pact given the similar behavior of both signatories regarding economic, social, ethical, and humanitarian behaviors should come as no surprise either. They both wanted Central Europe too. So FDRs so-called preparing for war comes down to nothing more than a series of maneuvers to execute actions that the people of America likely didn't want and were easily a good distraction? Here's another way to look at his preparation for war and the cynicism that went behind it. During the days of the Syrian civil war where isis was running amok, Remember that Barack Obama said he was going to create an iron dome by way of the US Air Force. Do you remember how many of the MSM questioned whether or not this was even possible? How many retired generals said this cannot work unless you have boots on the ground no matter what technology we have. And they were correct in their negative outlooks for the red lines and the iron dome created by Obama. And then look at the intricacy and timing of the Pearl harbor attacks. Somehow, the imperial military pulled off an attack halfway across the world with no radar, caveman-like communications, no satellites , and no boots on the ground with pinpoint precision and accuracy which miraculously gave FDR the public sentiment he needed. Kind of makes you wonder what FDR was really up to. What I was responding to in my original comments was that the academic lady's comments regarding populism and nationalism are empty words. Every nation has a populist and nationalist tendency for good or for bad. These are not the issues necessarily. It's generally over the last 200 years the leftist concept that has created the destruction and death. And for her to lionize FDR, someone who hammered on populist and nationalist concepts himself is curious. It's particularly curious in light of the behavior and actions of FDR. So yes he was preparing for war, why, and for who? I would not put too much in the narratives and propaganda of the state and the MSM. Don't forget that the Pulitzer prize plaque for the New York times propaganda of Joseph Stalin as good old Uncle Joe still resides in their front foyer as a prized possession.
@@taiwandxt6493 "but fascism was seen at the time as a greater threat to the western powers" not completely true, communism was always seen as the greatest threat to europe which enable hitler during appeasement while diplomatically isolating a struggling USSR. hitler was literally seen as counter balancing the communist threat to europe. "Both the USSR and Nazi Germany are not the ideological friends of the western powers, seeing as both are opposed to fundamental tenants like liberal democracy" i wouldn't say its fully true either. for hitler, yea its true that he opposed liberal democracy. as for stalin, its a little bit more complicated. unlike hitler, stalin actually wasn't opposed to european liberal democracy bc he emphasised "socialism in one state" which reflects his foreign policy of gaining ally ship as a means to protect them during a vulnerable state of transition (this can still be seen with the russio -ukraine war). he was far too focused on the USSr during pre and during ww2, tho i do suppose he was opposed to them after ww2 and nato etc.
The Allies were naively unaware of Stalin's Global ambitions until we had effectively "lend leased" them into a superpower. Unable to counter their conquest of Eastern Europe, including Poland, a country they invaded while in an alliance with Hitler, which kicked off the whole war.
If you think FDR was just an ignorant idiot about the ambitions of Stalin then you're a sheep, believing everything you're told. Near the end of the war, FDR said this of Stalin: “I think that if I give him everything that I possibly can and ask nothing from him in return, noblesse oblige, he won’t try to annex anything and will work for a world of democracy and peace.”. So we are left with one of two conclusions: FDR was a low iq idiot who was naive even after being told the truth many times, even once firing a diplomat who went to the soviet union for talking bad about them; or FDR had motives he didn't admit to.
"dealing" with is a very generous word for a truly unhinged foreign policy agenda that constantly alienated allies and egged on authoritarian monsters.
True centrist and unbiased in her history. Not motivated by anything but facts and common sense. Love her. Need more educated people like this teaching.
On the contrary, FDR and his New Deal programs prevented the United States from becoming fascist, communist or technocratic by taking bits and pieces of each of their economic and fiscal policies and marrying them with liberalism; creating modern liberalism as we know it. That system has largely held for almost a century.
It was evil and illegal then and it is now, FDR was a proud leftist socialist who’s policies destroyed our economy to the point he had to bait Japan into a war to cover and save a complete collapse of the economy! One of the worst if not the worst president in history!
And FDR wasn't even a liberal, but he knew what needed to be done: be a leader and look out for your citizens. I'm sure he'd be surprised and dismayed to know he's a progressive icon due to how crazy things have become.
@@morgan4574he didn’t look out for anyone but himself and his cronies, you aren’t getting correct history of America. If he did care he’d have kept us out of war and wouldn’t have instituted socialist economy damaging policies we are still suffering from today.
@@g.3008 the only thing damaged here is your brain 🤌 or maybe you were asleep in history class when they were learning about Pearl Harbor, the dust bowl, and the great depression? The only cronies are millionaires and billionaires and their useful idiots who will never even come close to their level of wealth. Hey guess what? If you were given $7000 every day out of nowhere, it would take you 900 years to earn what Elon Musk made from his base salary alone, LAST YEAR ONLY. We do not live on the same planet my guy. But keep licking the rich people's taint.
Usually agree with her. But FDR filled his cabinet with communist sympathizers & communists. He covered up the death camps, SS did the NYT. And he kept ambassadors who praised Stalin long before we joined the war. He was a progressive who stacked the Supreme Court & connived a way to unconstitutionally run for office a third time. All while he was having affairs with at least two younger women. He did not end the depression, & he spent like the socialists on our current administration. The war cured the depression. And his judgement was the typical flawed one of progressives, who have no idea about war. Putting the majority of our naval fleet in one place, & with no real protective precautions in a time when Japan was threatening us & the world was colossally incompetent.
You're so wrong I don't even know where to begin. But let's start with this one: It was NOT "unconstitutional" for a president to run for and serve three terms or four terms at the time FDR was president. At that time, there were no term limits on a president. It was after FDR's death that the Republicans pushed for the term limit amendment. So right there, you show your utter ignorance. Absolutely no idea what you're talking about. Next, FDR DID in fact end the Depression. While this is more subjective, the fact is that the Depression was already easing due to New Deal policies WELL BEFORE the US entered WWII. In fact, except for the initial period when FDR took office while the worst of the Depression was happening, and one brief downturn later, New Deal policies slowly and surely worked away at the effects of the Depression, returning people to work, strengthening the financial system, and so on. FDR basically helped to create the Middle Class, and it was the growth of income and economic strength in the middle that eventually brought overall growth to the economy. FURTHERMORE, this BS about "the war ending the Depression" makes ZERO sense when you consider that under FDR... and WELL BEFORE our entrance into WWII, the US went from financial ruin to, in just a few years under his leadership, to being capable of not only a buildup of its own military in GREAT numbers, but in being able to help fund and support Britain and the USSR in their fight against Nazi Germany. AND more importantly, when we DID enter the war, we were already capable of fighting a TWO FRONT CONFLICT. We would NOT have been in a position to do ANY of this if the Depression, in fact, had not already been essentially ended. You again know NOTHING of history when you make your remark about progressives knowing nothing of war. In case you weren't aware, FDR was SECRETARY OF THE NAVY under Woodrow Wilson (you know, the Democrat who was president during WWI) and also, you know, in case you weren't aware... FDR led the country to victory in WWII... helped a bit by his successor, Harry Truman... also a progressive Democrat who led men as an officer in combat during WWI... but as you claim, "progressives" don't understand war. I could go on and on, but it's impossible to get through to idiots, so screw it.
FDR, in his last year, said this about STALIN: "I think that if I give him everything that I possibly can and ask nothing from him in return, noblesse oblige, he won’t try to annex anything and will work for a world of democracy and peace.”! Anyone trying to defend FDR's willful ignorance of what the communists were actually trying to achieve has either been deceived themselves or is lying to you!
Lol you mean the civilian president was responsible for the positioning of the fleet not the Admirals, and the lack of budget that made that a requirement was his fault not the Congress responsible for funding decisions? I know a lot of people think the President is some sort of all powerful autocrat however the truth is that his powers are intentionally limited by law.
I hadn’t thought of that perspective, but we cannot forget that Roosevelt was so ill and he opposed the imperialist powers that he didn’t seem to plan for the communist threat in post war Europe.
Honestly the way I understand life at this point, is it’s sitting with a group of people you hate or will eventually hate and working together to fix a problem you hate more. That’s life.
Excellent genralized explanation of the alliance situation. It could also be used in a way to explain funding Ukraine against russia without even mentioning the humanitarian factor.
Exactly. Russia is depleting their own military power, using up a lot of their stored weaponry (tanks munitions etc.) as well as wrecking their own economic future through the massive manpower losses they can't really afford due to their already shrinking population. And the thing is, most of the money we are spending to support Ukraine is spent with our own companies, paying them to build what we are sending to Ukraine. On top of that, it's shown us that we have a strategic weakness in that we can't produce some weapons and munitions as fast as we should, so we've started increasing our production capacity for those items. This would have been a huge problem if we had found ourselves directly involved in a war and couldn't replace our losses fast enough, like Russia is experiencing now.
@robertmartin9029 yes all your points are accurate. The US has time, man power and money to make any effective war platform changes, including development of new technologies. While russia is circling the drain of collapse due to it's own mistakes.
If France had managed to repel the German invasion in 1940 or even drawn out the conflict longer, it likely would have significantly changed the dynamics of WWII. The rapid fall of France in 1940 left Britain as the only major Western European power standing against the Third Reich, putting immense pressure on the UK and shifting the strategic landscape. The fall of France forced the Western Allies to reconsider their approach and alliance with the USSR.
I love how she says it like: it's common sense to not piss off your allies in war, even if you hate them.
common sense that Truman and his rapidly anti-communist advisors lacked. contributing to the start of the Cold War.
I think it often goes unremarked that Soviet and US intelligence both said the other power didn't really have any designs to destroy each other at the end of the war. right up until the mutual paranoia started to mount in the final months of the war with the Japan Situation. Truman and his council wanted to wall up the Soviets out of fear of communism, and Stalin wanted to head south to build buffers and shore up communists in Asia.
Yeah but maybe you don't agree to give them half of Europe
@@kazmark_gl8652 It would have been nice if Comrade Stalin had shored up Communists to fight against Japanese instead of having them collaborate with them & making the USA carry the load single handedly in the Pacific
Yeah, but then you could have the possibility of extending the war, just switched your enemy from Hitler to Stalin@@drewpamon
@@sgabig maybe I missed something, but the history I know is that after dealing with the Germans the soviets started a large campaign against the Japanese on mainland south east asia specifically Mongolia and Manchuria. While both Chinese factions resisted heavily the Japanese invasion.
I love how clear this lady is.
This is a great interview. I've watched it a couple times and I still click on the shorts
So sad that not more people listen to her...
@@kaerscarface Her answers are far better than the questions.
FDR was a socialist failure
She's a very smart woman.
Churchill, an avid anti-communist, said that if Hitler invaded Hell he would say good things about the devil when questioned about allying with Stalin (of course he was also quick to warn about what Stalin intended at the end of the war).
Churchill was a colonialist who tried approaching stalin behind roosevelt’s back on how to split up post war europe.
With fdr, who made churchill sign the atlantic charter, gone, and truman dropping the bomb, what happened is simple dominos. Read “as he saw it”.
If Hitler invaded Hell, I would make at least a favourable reference of the Devil in the House of Commons."
Because the Eternal Anglo has always been a Judaizing heretic since Cromwell at the very least.
Churchill knew the time to defeat the Communists was 1917 not 1941. Save the Tsar and enact a regime of the White Russians . Churchill bemoaned the lost opportunity in stopping communism before Stalin took power.
@@harrisonjones280 just remember both the US AND THE UK had troops on the ground in Russia up till the early twenties fighting the Russians.
The failure of FDR to be sufficiently anti communist... Wow that's a loaded question if I've ever heard one. Her answer was great through.
that's a simple historical fact that is accepted in contemporary WW2 history, you denying it holds no water.
@@sofialoppe6255 no it's not an opinion and one that doesn't hold any water as she elegantly explained.
@@sofialoppe6255it’s not a historically accurate view. Where do you get your info from PragerU?
@@sofialoppe6255
Your information is from the Joe McCarthy anti Democratic Witch Hunt where most people from FDR'S administration were smeared and accused of Communism or of knowing a Communist or being related to a Communist as if that was a crime. Particularly as they were our Allies during WW2. Total hysteria with very little actual meat.
I interesting how you’re upset that she was asked the question. It was a valid question that he was there to ask.
I think this lady is great , well spoken, educated, sensible and interesting to listen to. I would love to sit down and talk history with her some day , I've never heard of her prior to your video collaborations together but I am quickly becoming a fan of hers
Also wrong.
@@thadoc5186possible any example?
It's refreshing to hear from someone who actually knows how geopolitics work.
Shes clearly a high-fuctioning psychopath
You have no idea!
exactly i have mad respect for this channel
didnt said nothing new
FDR signed secret agreements in early 41 guaranteeing the US would enter the war
I've watched the interview in ful. It's amazing to watch her answer these really leading questions with context and objectivity.
Yet sensationalist media persists
Ooo where is the full?
@@sydneydwoskin4950Just go to the link at the bottom of the screen where the short is initiated.
It will take you directly to a 2 1/2 hour interview.❤
Enjoy
@@sydneydwoskin4950 above the title of the short, there should be a link to the full video
EDIT: I think I found it: ua-cam.com/video/YcVSgYz5SJ8/v-deo.html&ab_channel=DwarkeshPatel
The contrast between the pretend intelligence of the man asking the question and the actual intelligence in the women answering it is staggering
I would’ve loved to have been taught history by this lady.
Then you would be greatly misled. Search for truth, let it find you. This lady is not about truth, but rather furthering the deception.
@@tephveritas1750 Correct. Did she mention the allies were helping to arm Hitler before the war? Then they helped arm Stalin and Russia to defeat Hitler and after the Germans surrendered they gave Stalin most of Eastern Europe freely even though most of Easter Europe did what they could to assist the allies defeat Hitler.
Those two men created, promoted the war, helped end it and created the cold war afterwards.
She also fails to mention had the Japanese NOT attacked Pearl Harbour USA would never have entered the war? THAT was the ONLY reason USA entered ww2 at all.
They made heaps before entering the war and far more after the war.
WW2 was stage managed until the final solution became apparent and Japan attacked USA.
@@tephveritas1750, please tell us about her specific lies, and then your rebuttals. Waiting, waiting...
@@BrinnerDang As far as I have heard from her, she NEVER speaks to the actual hidden hands that influence all of history from behind the scenes, the same hidden hands to which all rulers (Presidents, Prime Ministers, Governors, etc.) are beholden. If you don't understand the influence and control by the Vatican, the Jesuits, the Free Masons, the Zionist Jews, etc.; you do not understand history.
It's akin to watching a sporting event thinking the game is played fairly unaware that the refs are paid off by a group (hidden hand) that has already determined the outcome of the game. The game is merely played to keep the slaves distracted and controlled.
@@BrinnerDang As I described above. In another video, she claims Britain "helped America crack the Enigma code." That is so far from anything even approximating truth I wouldn't trust anything that she says.
She’s a classical artist in the theater of politics and war. Bravo 👏 well done Mi Lady! She’s on point.
She’s very smart and explains things in clear language. Would love to have dinner with her and listen.
Has she ever worked for a President?? If not then why?? This woman should have our leaders ear.
@@terryt2728 Not to take anything away from her, bu there are thousands of people-professional historians and political scientists-with her level of knowledge and expertise. I'm sure she would agree. She's particularly good at answering leading questions very clearly, but again that's not too rare.
@@terryt2728 she teaches officers at a naval college so no shes not wasted
@@terryt2728 Maybe you could just look up her credentials rather than asking SM.
In any event, here is why people seem to want to listen to her.
Education:
Paine graduated magna cum laude from Harvard University in 1979 with a B.A. in Latin American studies. She spent ten years acquiring her Ph.D. in Russian and Chinese history at Columbia University, which included five years of research and language study in China, Taiwan, Russia, Japan, and Australia. She has received two Title VIII fellowships from the Hoover Institution, two Fulbright fellowships, and other fellowships from Japan, Taiwan, and Australia. She began her career at the Naval War College as an associate professor starting in 2000 and is now a professor of history and grand strategy.
Author
Japan caught between maritime and continental imperialism, in Hal Brands, The Makers of Modern Strategy: From the Ancient World to the Digital Age (Princeton University Press, 2023, pages 415-439).
The Japanese Empire: Grand Strategy from the Meiji Restoration to the Pacific War (Cambridge University Press, 2017).
The Wars for Asia 1911-1949 (Cambridge University Press, 2012). 2012 Winner of the PROSE award for European & World History and longlisted for the Lionel Gelber prize.
The Sino-Japanese War of 1894-1895: Perceptions, Power, and Primacy (Cambridge University Press, 2003).
Imperial Rivals: China, Russia, and Their Disputed Frontier, 1858-1924 (M.E. Sharpe, 1996). Winner of the 1997 Barbara Jelavich Book Prize.
Co-author with Bruce A. Elleman:
Modern China: Continuity and Change, 1644 to the Present
Editor:
Nation Building, State Building and Economic Development: Case Studies and Comparisons (M.E. Sharpe, 2010).
Co-editor with Bruce A. Elleman:
Naval Power and Expeditionary Warfare: Peripheral Campaigns and New Theatres of Naval Warfare (Routledge, 2011).
Naval Coalition Warfare: From the Napoleonic War to Operation Iraqi Freedom (Routledge, 2008).
Naval Blockades and Seapower: Strategies and Counter-Strategies 1805-2005 (Routledge, 2006)
Currently she is a professor of strategy and policy at the U.S. Naval War College in Newport, Rhode Island.
Is that enough qualifications or do you require something more?
@@terrencebuckerwhat exactly is the point of your comment?
“Failure to be anti-communist enough” what a ridiculous way to phrase that. He succeeded in maintaining good diplomatic relations with the USSR by treating them like an equal.
A Threat* not an equal
Yeah the full interview is chock-full of these bad subjective questions. She navigates them beautifully
Wait, are the right wing idiots both anti-Stalin AND pro-Putin?
Make it make sense!
If anything Stalin failed by being submissive to the west, he could have maintained Berlin, Vienna and Tehran for himself as well as all of Korea.
@@maximilianrobespierre8365 remember the US had the A-bomb 4 years before the soviets.
She is wonderful. I could listen to someone with an expertise this vast all day.
She applies LOGIC
She's also biased. Roosevelt was also a cause of WWII. Not because of his preparations, but because of HIS actions in the build up. He froze Japanese assets. Cut off their oil. Put all kinds of economic sanctions on them. Interfered with their international policies. He WANTED WAR. So, sure, he prepared the US for war, but let's not pretend he was some innocent. He is the first President to push American down the Imperial, Pax Americana path.
Everything she says is completely obvious to everyone who's read a book. She does not impress me at all, though maybe because its all the softball questions.
@@1987retromancan you tell us where you got your degree in WW2 history? Perhaps even WW1 history to give us context as to how WW2 came about. Also, where did you earn your degree? Here in the states? You are so sure of yourself to tell the world online how much smarter you are than this learned woman. That's usually the sign of a weak man with an inferiority complex. Surely you would know these signs from history. Pompous @ss!
@@1987retroman, been drinking the 'Sour Grape Wine' again, eh...?
I can listen to her talk all day. Common sense is so rare in our political elite. The words of the politicians today are so dumbed down and ridiculous. Her words are like a breath of fresh air.
To win their elections (and to give to the organization of parties in order to get committee seats in order to actually do something), they have to get big political contributions. Those contributions don't come from us, they come from rich people who want to make even more money at the expense of us... Basically kickbacks in exchange for things that move money from non-rich people to rich people (such as taxes on income but not on inheritance). After this, they have to win elections and get our votes, which normally we give out for basically the inverse of this. Both sides can't be true at the same time because they are the logical contrary of each other: either they have to lie to the rich people, or they have to lie to us. We've literally built a system where they have to lie no matter what. In contrast, this lady's income comes, as far as I know, from teaching, so of course she tells the truth plain as day.
That is because much of the electorate has no interest in common sense. The just want to have their existing beliefs reinforced. If she was talking about stuff that is happening now, half these comments would be nasty ad-hominem attacks -- either from the right or the left.
This woman is amazing! Great lessons!
Don't they understand the concept of having your current enemy and potential future enemy deplete each others strength, reducing your own losses considerably. The support for the USSR was to ensure they were able to stay in the fight, if the USSR lost or made a separate peace deal, then the western allies would have to deal with the Axis alone.
Americans have trouble thinking multifactorially
Exactly correct.
Russia backed us up in the revolutionary and civil wars. They were building the transiberian railway as we built our transcontinental, which were purposed to a connect via alaska under an assassinated mckinley. Russia is our enemy, wtf? You’re a british puppet.
@brunodesrosiers266LOLOLOLOL!!!! MOLOTOV-RIBBONTROP WAS UK's FAULT?!?! YOU HOMUNCULUS TWIT.
That happened. The problem was the rest of europe, was toast as well. The soviets did not really invade they just stayed where they were after the war ended and made sure the groups that were favorable to them took over the eastern European countries.
That’s not being a communist, that’s just being pragmatic. In war you can’t always afford to be picky when it comes to your allies
There's something called nuance and history is full of it. You're ignoring the most important facts here.
@@sofialoppe6255 such as what? The Allies needed help & for the Soviets not to help the Axis powers. It made total sense
i love how this comment can be applied to hitler and stalin as well.
@@merlin5662it's a superficial irony - you can draw many similarities between people, but the meaningful difference is that one group of allies was defending against invaders, while the other group of allies was composed of the aggressors. In Hitler's case it was external, immediate & obvious. In Stalin's case it was internal & not so obvious. Was it ultimately a mistake to ally with Stalin? We know we couldn't fight both of them. We know we couldn't afford the war to go on much longer. Stalin ultimately slaughtered more people - but only because Hitler was stopped & Stalin wasn't. It really looks like we had to choose between what was at the time the lesser of 2 evils
@@domusardet4961 I would argue it's the other way around. If you know anything about soviet foreign policy, you would know that stalin wanted allies in order to build a strong USSR during the 20s and 30s. However the west saw it differently and diplomatically isolated the USSR (even during appeasement Hitler was tolerated to balance stalin in east Europe). As much as people say stalin and Hitler were buddies for the pact I would argue that stalin was being pragmatic to delay nazi invasion of Hence my comment
But on a different note I find people who call stalin evil solely BC he killed more people than Hitler very surface level analysis. I would argue the Hitler was the worse of the two BC he has policies specifically targeting Jews and the extermination of the Jewish race while stalin policies (arguably) unintended killed many Ukrainians during the holodomor and locked political prisoners that seemingly opposed him (he was extremely paranoid about internal external threats to the USSR). That isn't to say he is exempt from scrutiny, but logically speaking stalin made poor judgements that led to good and bad outcomes
Man, she is so sober it’s stinking refreshing.
You deal with that many drunks that you are surprised when you see someone who isn't a drunk?
@@BradSanders-lr1sx he might be referring to how serious she is lol not her intoxication level.
@@BradSanders-lr1sx “sobriety” in this case has nothing to do with imbibing alcoholic beverages.
@@johnmcgoldrick7085He's a Russian bot. They're all drunks.
@@BradSanders-lr1sxThe Russian bot with a 2 month old UA-cam account is complaining about "drunks". That's some major league projection, Svetlana. lol
This woman is brilliant, and such a delight to listen to. Lucid, so well spoken, she has clearly spent years learning about and digesting more history of war than I can even imagine. Our naval college is privileged to have her.
I so enjoy listening to this brilliant historian.
She is straight to the point, all facts no nonsense. She’s really interesting!
i LOVE the way this lady transfers her knowledge.
This woman has such great knowledge and communicates it so clearly. She feels like a history version of Carl Sagan, calm, knowledgeable, and pleasant to listen to.
Agree! I would absolutely watch a history series by her, a la 'Cosmos'
Oh YES! Well said!
This has actually nothing to do with FDR's historic, documented softness for the soviets, which she failed to adress. There are several instances in which FDR gave extreme lenience to stalin, one reason being "the man, the way he's treated poorly by other western nations, like the english, we ought to give the man and his ideas some consideration."
This woman knows her history love her❤
Make the time to hear this entire interview instead of just these shorts. It is absolutely brilliant
This lady provides such good information. Very enjoyable.
I think the communist sympathiser accusation came from the Yalta Conference where FDR effectively conceded Poland to the USSR. The accusations were popular amongst Polish and other European immigrants.
Yeah bc FDR totally should have sent the American troops to fight in Eastern Europe after defeating the Third Reich. That wouldn't have been a disaster...
Did you forget that he had the Communist Spy living in the White House (Harry Hopkins) and his entire State Department was staffed with known Communists proven by the Venona Papers? Yea, FDR sold out most of Europe to Stalin.
@@samlee3039look up Operation Unthinkable. It was unthinkable for a reason.
If USA had UK had declared war against USSR at that point of time then Soviet Tanks would have ended up at English Channel.
@@apsbhamra6853 yeah I was being sarcastic
Because the US had given the soviets so much help and aid that they ended the war so powerful! You're acting like nuance doesn't exist lmao.
This lady is so good at history
RS. Canada
WE SHOULD LISTEN TO THIS WOMAN. She makes very good and educated points.
The notion that the allies should have antagonized the USSR while fighting the Germans is silly. All they could do was prepare knowing the the USSR was fundamentally different on an ideological level and that it would likely be an enemy later on.
In fact, the push to end the war in the Pacific as quickly as possible (not just Truman dropping the nukes, but the aggression of the final years of the campaign in general) can be seen as trying to defeat Japan without the Soviets to minimize Stalin’s “claim” to the Pacific. Japan was resource-starved, on the defensive, and in decline. The U.S. COULD have waited around and let the Japanese sink more resources into fighting the Soviets in China instead of pushing so aggressively in the Pacific. But we didn’t. And as a result of our island-hopping and later use of nukes against Japan effectively boxed the USSR and their eastern sphere of influence into mainland Asia. There was no partition of Japan or substantial Soviet presence in the pacific, giving the U.S. naval superiority in the Pacific after the war.
The USSR’s land grabs in WW2 were mostly confined to Eastern Europe, and even then, it was vital in dividing Germany’s attention and to be honest, NOBODY but the USSR and their ruthless meatgrinder tactics could have pushed the Germans so far back so quickly. The sheer scale of the Soviets’ wall of quantity-over quality tanks and overwhelming numbers spanning across the continent played a vital role in depleting Germany’s capacity to wage war. Their campaign was brutal, costly, and ugly even by WW2 standards, but it was extremely effective.
So the very single act to limit soviet power and influence happened after FDR died and that's your excuse for saying nothing more could've been done? The soviets were in an existential war, the US giving into every demand and giving them anything we could was not necessary. I have to wonder, where did you pick up this view of the war? Was it from a biased source or are you personally a leftist?
EXACTLY! THANK YOU!
this precedes ww2 and begins with post 1917 but more broadly appeasement strategy during hitlers rise to power in the 30s.
The enemy of my enemy is my friend
This is one of the worst maxims out there.
And yet it defeated hitler@@samiaario8291
In the case of the USSR, the enemy of my enemy is also my enemy. As history has proven.
Something Saudi Arabia and Israel are learning about one another with respect to Iran
Until they aren't.
FDR understood one important rule:
the enemy of my enemy is my friend.
Exactly!
True. Once the enemy is gone, so is the common interest.
Why was Germany the enemy?
@@mymaster416 um, nazis?
@@LeCommieBoi .... and? where was the problem? Germany was never hostile towards America, or even France or Britain
Sarah Paine is a great historian.
Utterly Fascinating:::She is fabulous 🤗🤓😉
Listening to her at length on these videos is as interesting and enthralling a woman in a suit in a beige room can be! Your explanation for people like me, take into account stuff I have never considered. I could listen for hours. Great perspective!!
This Lady is so AWESOME,
The highest educated way, IS impressing ❤❤❤
"There are no accidents in politics".- FDR
As a Political Scientist I have to say Sarah Paine is very impressive. She has a great skill of simplifying these complex situations.
He had Henery Wallace as his VP in 1940. He also had Harry Hopkins - the former was a great admirer of the CCCP while the latter was believed to be a 'red'.
Sarah Paine is quite possibly the smartest person on the internet.
Her ability to discuss and explain complex issues is brilliant.
I'm sure it has happened then. But as a guy who loves history, I've never heard of this argument against FDR about the Soviets getting land because he was a sympathizer.
What a load of crap. FDR took a pragmatic approach. Which is fairly obvious to see with hindsight. Just like the lady said in a more detail.
FDR's domestic policies and the people in the US he chose to associate with already make conservatives suspicious that he was a communist sympathizer, and he made some very questionable concessions at Yalta that helped the Soviets gain a stranglehold over Eastern Europe. Regarding Yalta, keep in mind that:
1) By that point in the war the US GDP alone exceeded that of Germany, the USSR, and Japan combined.
2) Western forces were already well established in continental Europe.
3) Consequently, by this point in the war, the "don't piss off your allies" argument no longer held water (if it ever did). Stalin had little to offer and little that he could threaten.
That said, I understand that the interviewee is associated with the Naval War College or something like that, so I wouldn't expect her to really comment much on that:
1) Serving members of the military aren't supposed to get involved in politics and have to be very careful of what they say even when the party they favor is in power.
2) If her political views incline her to make the kind of argument I advanced above, she would have to be extra careful because we've just spent 4 years under the most aggressively leftist administration we've had since FDR, in a political environment where political prosecutions are more acceptable than they've been since the Civil War (if not more than ever).
3) On account of 2), it's probably more likely than average at the moment that a random member of the NWC faculty will be left of center.
Actually he had some kind of weird man crush on Stalin. See Montefiore "In the court of the red Tsar". This sentiment is reflected in Roosevelt’s quote: “I think that if I give him everything I possibly can and ask nothing from him in return, noblesse oblige, he won’t try to annex anything and will work with me for a world of democracy and peace.”
Actually you bore me.
@@minnesotasteve I don’t think it’s me, I think it’s Minnesoter. Man it is deadsville.
dude nice pfp, Johnny thunders is one of my favorites of all time
average leftist response to being given evidence that goes contrary to your believed narrative:
It comes down to the old saying - The enemy of my enemy is my friend.
Maxim 29. "The enemy of my enemy is my enemy's enemy. No more. No less."
The fact that we had a common enemy didn't make us friends, it meant that we could work together, temporarily. Both the West and the USSR were already planning for the next potential war against each other even as they fought Germany.
As Sir Winston Churchill stated, “If Hitler invaded hell I would make at least a favourable reference to the devil in the House of Commons.”
She needs to teach ALL OF OUR YOUTH!
FDR put the Soviet Union in the position that they bore the brunt of fighting the germans. The Soviets lost millions, and we lost a fraction of that. So they had a bit more post-war clout than we would have preferred, but yet they had paid the highest cost in blood
Russian army was poorly equipped towards the end of the war but the unequipped millions of cannon fodder soldiers were always available.
@@tantuce the Soviet Union was in the same situation that Russia is now with ukraine. When the conflict started in both cases, yes, poorly equipped. Poor logistics, poor manufacturing, low arsenals. But by the end of the war, they were making almost as many fighter planes, tanks and trucks as we were. Same thing with ukraine. Russia was not prepared to fight a war, but they have had to ramp up their manufacturing and military industrial base to keep up with the Western weapons flowing into ukraine. Now, they are a much more formidable fighting force than they were two or three years ago. So we didn't actually we can rush, we've made them stronger
Russia signed a friendship treaty with Germany with a secret codicil -- a treaty which divided the countries between them between the two. Russia deserved what it got as a result of that treaty, and never deserved the help it got.
One of the few interviews were I saw all of it and kinda wished it was longer. This was very very good episode.
I would love to just talk with her, such a great educator and conversationalist
Not to take away from Dwarkesh Patel (just discovered his podcasts, instantly subscribed) but I also never heard of Sarah Paine either.. would she consider visiting other podcasts such as JRE or Lex Fridmen?
In June 1941, Hitler astonished the world again by invading Germany's nominal ally Russia, turning it into an ally of Britain. Churchill, a long-time anti-communist, remarked, "If Hitler invaded Hell, I would make at least a favourable reference of the Devil in the House of Commons."
Russia was never Germany's ally, lmao
Yeah it was when the pincered Poland @fen3311
@@romangilyard8529 No? There was never any alliance treaties formed. They partitioned a country together under an agreement, that does not constitute an alliance.
@@romangilyard8529 Poland and Nazis invaded Czechoslovakia together 💀. Did that make them allies? Britain was the only country that supported the Nazi annexation of Sudetenland 💀, when Stalin was ready to help any country militarily that would resist the Nazis. Does that make the Britain and Nazis allies?
Your wh0re queen Elizabeth, her sister, her uncle and aunt were openly Nazis. Does that make them Nazi allies? oh wait....
@fen3311 Please look up the Kama tank school, the Lipetsk fighter-pilot school, the 1940 German-Soviet Commercial Agreement, and the 1939 German-Soviet Credit Agreement.
A good portion of our leadership, not to mention citizenry, would do well learning from this level headed proffesional.
I guarantee nobody in Britain makes this same argument about Churchill and nobody says this about Eisenhower (or Patton and certainly not MacArthur)
you guarantee? well Churchill knew Stalin would be a useful ally against Nazis. but he was not fooled by the USSR or Stalin. Roosevelt was! the Democrats were fanboys of the USSR ...
@@coling3957 Um… FDR gave a speech during his 1936 reelection campaign where he told a group of Italian-Americans that his economic policies were inspired by Mussolini and the US government was constantly on the lookout for Soviet collusion before, during and after the war; idk about FDR so much, but Truman was outwardly hostile to Soviet and Marxist interests for his whole administration (in some ways even more than Eisenhower but in most ways probably less); plus if he was rly a communist sympathizer as u say then idk why ppl like Nixon thought so highly of him (Nixon also thought very highly of Johnson and even ppl like Reagan who were convinced that Johnson was a red-blooded commie despite his rabid aggression against Ho Chi Minh looked to FDR as a favorable model of reasonable big government Democrats, worth mentioning that neither of these two were gullible idiots by any stretch of the imagination)
None of those people were President. And none of them made the decision to arm the Soviets, and Mao.
That is because Churchill was much more suspicious of Stalin than FDR was. FDR cut him out of the loop to some extent for this reason.
@@coling3957Ah yes, Harry Truman, a democrat, a famous fan of the USSR. Man you MAGA people need to learn some history.
This is what I love about learning, studying, & majoring in history -> there is always a lie that hides a truth of these historical events. Perspective, expandable research than just on one resource, & also have a sense of revisionism play a role to expose & have better a understand of our world than just a normal textbook.
Prejudice people would say Roosevelt was communist. 😮
This podcast is so good. It doesn't rely on citing a conspiracy theory every 10 minutes like most podcasts around
Hello..."Did the failure of..." is clearly a conspiracy theory. How old are you? Have you gone to University?
@@RK-um9tu that's not what a conspiracy theory is. How ironic you're asking me how old I am and if I went to university 😂
@@SoniakaDeeD. It was a question asked from a conspiracy theory POV, though. It wasn't one, but it was trying to test the validity of one. She deftly dismissed it brilliantly, though...
>Allies start world war to fight for Polish independence
>end the war with Poland being occupied for half of the century
What a dumb question
is it? baring in mind russia/soviets held a large part of europe for many decades
@@hotdog9262 I'd say it is a dumb question, considering Nazi Germany and their Italian and Japanese teammates were literally trying to kill us at the time, and this was all happening before the Soviets set up puppet states to hold Eastern Europe for those many decades...
@@hotdog9262 Yes it is! What happened to Eastern Europe after WWII had nothing to do with FDR! You Americans always think your leaders make all the decisions!
@@hotdog9262 Ofcourse it is..FDR was mildly progressive, was socially conservative and from an upperclass family and lavished in his wealth. Only in America can communism even be discussed in regards to such a man.
@@mogreen1232 you didn`t get what was asked
Being anti-communist doesn't make sense back then. There was a study that revealed, the years shortly after 1945.
That a lot of people recognized that the USSR truly won the war. More than people do now, who add USA & UK involved in the war.
Britain had an underclass of workers that was almost fully communist. They sort of operated like an oligarchy, completely independent of their population.
Communism=poor capitalism has its problems but its greatest economic system currently
@@fastcourse01 the US won the war not the USSR
ussr was just warm bodies using American industrial might - you don’t even know what lend lease is lmao
Plus the pacific was almost entirely the USA
commies are never intelligent
Conservatives who claim that about FDR have the luxury of hindsight and the irresponsibility of second guessing.
His questions felt loaded. I'm glad she was able to keep her cool when giving very reasonable answers.
Who gave eastern europe to stalin?
Stalin gave it to himself.
Stalin was anti-capitalist and Roosevelt was anti-communist, but they had to fight together to defeat Hitler. Hitler was a threat to both.
Roosevelt confiscated gold from the American population. Like what world are you living in thinking the guy who passed the New Deal is somehow pro Capitalist? Lol
They both hated something even worst fascist
@@ricojra7670Fdr praised fascism and Mussolini.
Vladimir Lenin considers Mussolini to be one of the best leaders of the leftists movement.
Mussolini and Hitlers mistake was trying to create a new political ideology when the east and west already established their spotZ
You have a 10 year olds view of the war
@@theskeptic3214lenin praised Mussolini in 1912 when he was a socialist and sent support to the Italian socialist party after Mussolini had split from them. Don’t confuse that with him being sympathetic to fascists. He absolutely wasn’t. Not to mention the fact Mussolini spent much of his time in power hunting down socialists.
If you think a victorious post WWII USSR was a problem for the world, image what a post WWII Germany would have been.
They would have been bad for people in their orbit but they would have left us alone.
@@andrewwilson9183 are you ignorant to the multiple attempted fascist overthrows on the U.S.? they are ideologically opposed to us and would've meddled with us more than the USSR did on top of multiple extinct races
I love when this lady shows up in my feed
This woman is razor-sharp in her analysis.
I could sit at her feet and just listen to her talk.
She's completely downplaying the soviet infiltration of FDR's cabinet and closest allies for political reasons.
She states the military truth, of the time.
Actually she didn't. The notion of the German Army being an unstoppable mechanized entity is purely a myth. The Germans were heavily dependent on horses throughout the entire war. Simply put, Germany lacked the industrial capacity to fully mechanize its armed forces. Even the backwards Soviet Union possessed an industrial capacity that exceeded Nazi Germany's by leaps & bounds. And during the latter stages of the war, the Germans had to rely on slave labor to make the equipment for their military forces.
Has anyone watched "Europa The Last Battle"?
There is a lot of information about FDR, and Churchill that certainly gives a different perspective than the one we all learned in History classes. 🤔
That's a neo-Nazi propaganda film. Neo Nazi's are so stupid that watching their propaganda kills brain cells, so I don't recommend it.
Sarah Paine present complicated situations so clearly! “Manage an alliance”.
I used to live in Warm Springs. The actual climate of the area is almost frozen in time. The Springs are still open, I had a surgery in the only hospital (54 bed hospital), the Little White House is still open for visitors and the ink spill that occurred when Franklin Delano Roosevelt died is STILL on the original carpet.
Stalin was much more evil than Hitler.
Nah pretty sure they were equally evil, Stalin just liked to limit his evil to mostly killing people in the Soviet Union also had a lot longer to run up his kill count.
They're both Saints
If you wanna look at just total death counts, like how many people they murdered, it would certainly seem that way. But, looking at ideology? Eh, not really. Both were very much evil however Stalin was much more savory of an ally compared to Hitler. Hitler's racial policies made loads of people uncomfortable with him having as much power as he did, even amongst American racists as hypocritical as that sounds.
As Churchill, a staunch anticommunist, once said early in the war, "If Hitler invaded hell I would make at least a favorable reference to the devil in the House of Commons”.
It would be a blatant lie to ignore the fact that FDR did have legitimate communist sympathies and there were genuine communists in government under FDR.
Socialist sympathies, perhaps. But I think it's a mistake to say the man who sympathized with the plight of the working class and labor unions had any love for communism as exemplified by the USSR.
Great analysis, of the greatest president ever
Great knowledge from this lady
Interesting. She puts it in the context of the isolationists/americafirsters as being wrong as opposed to FDR. Wasn't it FDR and the Kennedys that were so enamored of Mussolini? Was he preparing for war because he knew that his policies had failed completely? I mean when in doubt as a failed leader create a war. It's not as though that concept hasn't been used over and over again. And furthermore, weren't the Soviets aligned with the Germans to carve up Poland/Eastern Europe? As bad as the German national socialist yes socialist one more time socialist workers party was... Wasn't Stalin equally, if not significantly more, murderous towards any number of minorities and their own people? The best that could be said is that FDR/Allies options posed quite the conundrum... The Nazis were truly terrible, and not knowing the future, how could they have known that the equally terrible Soviets were going to turn out to be even worse in the long run? See the effects of international communism throughout Eastern Europe, Southeast Asia, the Middle East, all of Africa, most of Central America and most of South America for more information. If her position is one of a moral absolute in that we must deal with the evil that is the Germans then she would be left in a position that Patton was correct and we should have immediately turned around and taken out Stalin and the Soviets. Unless of course her moral protestations are surface level only.
No demonstratably not true. The Russians were a nation that was quite backwards in tech and social cohesion. Germany was an enemy in control of all the might of industrialised Europe minus the UK. The threat of a German controlled Europe would be orders of magnitude greater than the Soviets.
Are you trying to insinuate that the nazis were left wing because of the name? You know north korea's name is democratic people's republic of korea, so they must be democratic right? And also you are attributing the problems im middle east and south america and in many other global south regions to communism as opposed to what the us's capitalist imperialism along with the earlier colonial european powers did?
No, FDR was preparing for war because he saw the growing threat of fascism in Europe. His policies did not fail but that is a topic for another day. When FDR began preparing for war by, among other things, pushing for and eventually signing the Selective Training and Service Act of 1940, France had already fallen and Britain was all alone currently embroiled in the Battle of Britain. Nazi Germany and fascism as a whole was an ideological threat to Roosevelt and a much more practical foreign policy threat due to our innate alliance with Britain and France. While Joseph Kennedy Sr's obsession with fascism is something that I cannot argue with because he was literally a fascist and tried to initiate a coup against FDR, FDR's admiration of Mussolini is often misinterpreted. FDR was not enamored by Mussolini because he was a fascist. He hated Mussolini's authoritarianism just as he did Hitlers. He admired Mussolini for his Great Depression era economic policies, specifically using Italy's budget surplus to pay wages and ensure businesses did not close their doors. And also, indeed Stalin was just as murderous toward his own people in terms of his policies, but fascism was seen at the time as a greater threat to the western powers. Not just ideologically speaking but also in regards to political and military power. Both the USSR and Nazi Germany are not the ideological friends of the western powers, seeing as both are opposed to fundamental tenants like liberal democracy, the Nazis were seen as a far greater ideological threat to the U.S under FDR due to specifically their racial policies. The Soviets were the much more savory allies and despite the existence of the Molotov Ribbentrop Pact, the allies knew that was not going to last because the Soviets and the Nazis spent the last decade criticizing each other.
@@taiwandxt6493 sounds like an interesting narrative you got there. Sounds pretty much like everything the federal government, our state funded schools, the MSM, and state-funded Marxist academics have been proselytizing at us for years. Certainly that is a ringing endorsement of the ideas. It's kind of like the those who consistently listen to what a leader or a state says and then are surprised when they do it. Take Putin for instance. Yes I find his methods and his background repugnant and concerning. But it's not as though he and the people of Russia were not clear. NATO in Ukraine is a red line. And here we are. In the same light, make all the excuses you'd like for FDR, he supported and lionized Mussolini. Just like people understood that the German national socialist yes socialist one more time a socialist workers party was an invention of the left prior to the war. And they did exactly what they said they were going to do. So the fact that the Molotov Ribbentrop pact given the similar behavior of both signatories regarding economic, social, ethical, and humanitarian behaviors should come as no surprise either. They both wanted Central Europe too. So FDRs so-called preparing for war comes down to nothing more than a series of maneuvers to execute actions that the people of America likely didn't want and were easily a good distraction? Here's another way to look at his preparation for war and the cynicism that went behind it. During the days of the Syrian civil war where isis was running amok, Remember that Barack Obama said he was going to create an iron dome by way of the US Air Force. Do you remember how many of the MSM questioned whether or not this was even possible? How many retired generals said this cannot work unless you have boots on the ground no matter what technology we have. And they were correct in their negative outlooks for the red lines and the iron dome created by Obama. And then look at the intricacy and timing of the Pearl harbor attacks. Somehow, the imperial military pulled off an attack halfway across the world with no radar, caveman-like communications, no satellites , and no boots on the ground with pinpoint precision and accuracy which miraculously gave FDR the public sentiment he needed. Kind of makes you wonder what FDR was really up to. What I was responding to in my original comments was that the academic lady's comments regarding populism and nationalism are empty words. Every nation has a populist and nationalist tendency for good or for bad. These are not the issues necessarily. It's generally over the last 200 years the leftist concept that has created the destruction and death. And for her to lionize FDR, someone who hammered on populist and nationalist concepts himself is curious. It's particularly curious in light of the behavior and actions of FDR. So yes he was preparing for war, why, and for who? I would not put too much in the narratives and propaganda of the state and the MSM. Don't forget that the Pulitzer prize plaque for the New York times propaganda of Joseph Stalin as good old Uncle Joe still resides in their front foyer as a prized possession.
@@taiwandxt6493 "but fascism was seen at the time as a greater threat to the western powers"
not completely true, communism was always seen as the greatest threat to europe which enable hitler during appeasement while diplomatically isolating a struggling USSR. hitler was literally seen as counter balancing the communist threat to europe.
"Both the USSR and Nazi Germany are not the ideological friends of the western powers, seeing as both are opposed to fundamental tenants like liberal democracy"
i wouldn't say its fully true either. for hitler, yea its true that he opposed liberal democracy. as for stalin, its a little bit more complicated. unlike hitler, stalin actually wasn't opposed to european liberal democracy bc he emphasised "socialism in one state" which reflects his foreign policy of gaining ally ship as a means to protect them during a vulnerable state of transition (this can still be seen with the russio -ukraine war). he was far too focused on the USSr during pre and during ww2, tho i do suppose he was opposed to them after ww2 and nato etc.
Ozzy Osbourne knows his history.
FDRs central economic control said more about him being a commie than his being duped by Stalin
What?
@@nightraven2975 Did I stutter? Or are you ignorant of FDR taking control of the banks and industries shortly after being sworn in?
Glad I found this. Brilliant.
"We defeated the wrong enemy"
-George Patton
Patton was known for having mental illnesses, and the simple fact that he never wanted to cooperated he just wanted to keep going east
The Allies were naively unaware of Stalin's Global ambitions until we had effectively "lend leased" them into a superpower. Unable to counter their conquest of Eastern Europe, including Poland, a country they invaded while in an alliance with Hitler, which kicked off the whole war.
If you think FDR was just an ignorant idiot about the ambitions of Stalin then you're a sheep, believing everything you're told. Near the end of the war, FDR said this of Stalin: “I think that if I give him everything that I possibly can and ask nothing from him in return, noblesse oblige, he won’t try to annex anything and will work for a world of democracy and peace.”. So we are left with one of two conclusions: FDR was a low iq idiot who was naive even after being told the truth many times, even once firing a diplomat who went to the soviet union for talking bad about them; or FDR had motives he didn't admit to.
Dude. You got her name wrong and you STILL haven’t fixed it even as you continue to monetize new shorts clipped from her episode.
Such disrespect.
Funny how people don't get that when it come to Trump dealing with Putin and Kim.
It's always different and wrong when Trump does something but when the demorats do it it's just fine.
"dealing" with is a very generous word for a truly unhinged foreign policy agenda that constantly alienated allies and egged on authoritarian monsters.
Who is Hitler in this situation?
@@thekid8832 No one is Hitler. He's dead.
Well said. Making sure Russia and China don’t deepen their alliance is the most important step in global politics.
I really enjoy listening to Dr. Paine. Where can I find the rest of this discussion?
The knowledge base she possesses is incredible. What a serious American asset
True centrist and unbiased in her history. Not motivated by anything but facts and common sense. Love her. Need more educated people like this teaching.
On the contrary, FDR and his New Deal programs prevented the United States from becoming fascist, communist or technocratic by taking bits and pieces of each of their economic and fiscal policies and marrying them with liberalism; creating modern liberalism as we know it. That system has largely held for almost a century.
It was evil and illegal then and it is now, FDR was a proud leftist socialist who’s policies destroyed our economy to the point he had to bait Japan into a war to cover and save a complete collapse of the economy! One of the worst if not the worst president in history!
And FDR wasn't even a liberal, but he knew what needed to be done: be a leader and look out for your citizens. I'm sure he'd be surprised and dismayed to know he's a progressive icon due to how crazy things have become.
@@morgan4574he didn’t look out for anyone but himself and his cronies, you aren’t getting correct history of America. If he did care he’d have kept us out of war and wouldn’t have instituted socialist economy damaging policies we are still suffering from today.
@@g.3008 the only thing damaged here is your brain 🤌 or maybe you were asleep in history class when they were learning about Pearl Harbor, the dust bowl, and the great depression? The only cronies are millionaires and billionaires and their useful idiots who will never even come close to their level of wealth. Hey guess what? If you were given $7000 every day out of nowhere, it would take you 900 years to earn what Elon Musk made from his base salary alone, LAST YEAR ONLY. We do not live on the same planet my guy. But keep licking the rich people's taint.
Usually agree with her. But FDR
filled his cabinet with communist sympathizers & communists. He covered up the death camps, SS did the NYT. And he kept ambassadors who praised Stalin long before we joined the war. He was a progressive who stacked the Supreme Court &
connived a way to unconstitutionally run for office a third time. All while he was having affairs with at least two younger women. He did not end the depression, & he spent like
the socialists on our current administration. The war cured the depression. And his judgement was the typical flawed one of progressives, who have no idea about war. Putting the majority of our naval fleet in one place, & with no real protective precautions in a time when Japan was threatening us & the world was colossally
incompetent.
You're so wrong I don't even know where to begin.
But let's start with this one: It was NOT "unconstitutional" for a president to run for and serve three terms or four terms at the time FDR was president. At that time, there were no term limits on a president. It was after FDR's death that the Republicans pushed for the term limit amendment.
So right there, you show your utter ignorance. Absolutely no idea what you're talking about.
Next, FDR DID in fact end the Depression. While this is more subjective, the fact is that the Depression was already easing due to New Deal policies WELL BEFORE the US entered WWII. In fact, except for the initial period when FDR took office while the worst of the Depression was happening, and one brief downturn later, New Deal policies slowly and surely worked away at the effects of the Depression, returning people to work, strengthening the financial system, and so on. FDR basically helped to create the Middle Class, and it was the growth of income and economic strength in the middle that eventually brought overall growth to the economy.
FURTHERMORE, this BS about "the war ending the Depression" makes ZERO sense when you consider that under FDR... and WELL BEFORE our entrance into WWII, the US went from financial ruin to, in just a few years under his leadership, to being capable of not only a buildup of its own military in GREAT numbers, but in being able to help fund and support Britain and the USSR in their fight against Nazi Germany. AND more importantly, when we DID enter the war, we were already capable of fighting a TWO FRONT CONFLICT. We would NOT have been in a position to do ANY of this if the Depression, in fact, had not already been essentially ended.
You again know NOTHING of history when you make your remark about progressives knowing nothing of war. In case you weren't aware, FDR was SECRETARY OF THE NAVY under Woodrow Wilson (you know, the Democrat who was president during WWI) and also, you know, in case you weren't aware... FDR led the country to victory in WWII... helped a bit by his successor, Harry Truman... also a progressive Democrat who led men as an officer in combat during WWI... but as you claim, "progressives" don't understand war.
I could go on and on, but it's impossible to get through to idiots, so screw it.
FDR, in his last year, said this about STALIN: "I think that if I give him everything that I possibly can and ask nothing from him in return, noblesse oblige, he won’t try to annex anything and will work for a world of democracy and peace.”!
Anyone trying to defend FDR's willful ignorance of what the communists were actually trying to achieve has either been deceived themselves or is lying to you!
Lol you mean the civilian president was responsible for the positioning of the fleet not the Admirals, and the lack of budget that made that a requirement was his fault not the Congress responsible for funding decisions? I know a lot of people think the President is some sort of all powerful autocrat however the truth is that his powers are intentionally limited by law.
I hadn’t thought of that perspective, but we cannot forget that Roosevelt was so ill and he opposed the imperialist powers that he didn’t seem to plan for the communist threat in post war Europe.
I love listening to her talk
The Enemy of my Enemy is my Friend.
Honestly the way I understand life at this point, is it’s sitting with a group of people you hate or will eventually hate and working together to fix a problem you hate more. That’s life.
❤this LADY VERY
Interesting 😊😊😊
Excellent genralized explanation of the alliance situation. It could also be used in a way to explain funding Ukraine against russia without even mentioning the humanitarian factor.
Exactly. Russia is depleting their own military power, using up a lot of their stored weaponry (tanks munitions etc.) as well as wrecking their own economic future through the massive manpower losses they can't really afford due to their already shrinking population. And the thing is, most of the money we are spending to support Ukraine is spent with our own companies, paying them to build what we are sending to Ukraine. On top of that, it's shown us that we have a strategic weakness in that we can't produce some weapons and munitions as fast as we should, so we've started increasing our production capacity for those items. This would have been a huge problem if we had found ourselves directly involved in a war and couldn't replace our losses fast enough, like Russia is experiencing now.
@robertmartin9029 yes all your points are accurate. The US has time, man power and money to make any effective war platform changes, including development of new technologies. While russia is circling the drain of collapse due to it's own mistakes.
"the enemy of my enemy is my friend" -- however, often, that is only temporary.
If France had managed to repel the German invasion in 1940 or even drawn out the conflict longer, it likely would have significantly changed the dynamics of WWII. The rapid fall of France in 1940 left Britain as the only major Western European power standing against the Third Reich, putting immense pressure on the UK and shifting the strategic landscape. The fall of France forced the Western Allies to reconsider their approach and alliance with the USSR.
Is literally just an example of “an enemy of my enemy is my friend”
Really enjoying her comment. You want her in the room and on your side.
FDR was a top 3 president. No debating that
The scenario explained: "The enemy of my enemy is my friend." The unspoken part is "even if we don't like them."