Anonymous NYT essay February 1943

I am part of the resistance to the Roosevelt administration. Many think that his reckless actions led to the war and that his strategy is unsound. He moved the Pacific fleet from San Diego to Hawaii over the protests of its commander Adm. Richardson who thought that the fleet was too vulnerable there. The disaster on December 7th was the result. Admiral King thinks that the Europe first strategy is dangerous and is diverting much of the Navy’s resources to the Pacific. Roosevelt has no regard for democracy as was shown by his court packing bill. The British are frustrated by the Americans not taking notes about the decisions reached at meetings. It’s as if Roosevelt revels in administrative chaos. He doesn’t understand what it means to be president and many of his officials are working diligently from within to frustrate his worst inclinations. He calls Stalin Uncle Joe and doesn’t appear to understand the menace of Communism. He made Henry Wallace his VP who is dangerously sympathetic to socialism….


Users who have liked this post:

  • avatar
  • avatar
  • avatar
  • avatar

Author: Richard Easton

Co-author of GPS Declassified: From Smart Bombs to Smartphones.

12 thoughts on “Anonymous NYT essay February 1943”

  1. Not to mention many of his anti-business policies transformed a recession into a full blown depression. The Smoot-Hawley tariff was one such blow to our economy. (And yes, I understand this may sound hypocritical due to my support of Trump’s trade policies. Different circumstances though and could be a good basis for another post.)

    In any case, conservative author Amity Shlaes wrote a very compelling book – The Forgotten Man: A New History of the Great Depression outlining why FDR could be considered the worst president in the history of the U.S.

    Users who have liked this comment:

    • avatar
    • avatar
  2. I’m commenting a second time because I wholeheartedly agree with the point de vue of this post.

    I understand that isolationist beliefs were strong after WWI and that it could have been political suicide for FDR to engage early on in WWII. What sickens me is the thought that millions of lives could have been saved if we’d stepped in and pressured Chamberlain to wipe out Hitler after the takeover of the Sudetenland.

    One could say, “Easy for you to judge” but it is. I am familiar with centuries of history and as the infamous cliche goes, it consistently repeats itself.

    Not to wander off topic, but this is one of the reasons I despised George H.W. Bush’s decision to leave that Iraqi monster intact after Desert Storm. It was uniquely similar to the “Peace for Our Time” political pact made by Neville Chamberlain in 1938.

  3. EThompson:
    I’m commenting a second time because I wholeheartedly agree with the point de vue of this post.

    I understand that isolationist beliefs were strong after WWI and that it could have been political suicide for FDR to engage early on in WWII. What sickens me is the thought that millions of lives could have been saved if we’d stepped in and pressured Chamberlain to wipe out Hitler after the takeover of the Sudetenland.

    One could say, “Easy for you to judge” but it is. I am familiar with centuries of history and as the infamous cliche goes, it consistently repeats itself.

    Not to wander off topic, but this is one of the reasons I despised George H.W. Bush’s decision to leave that Iraqi monster intact after Desert Storm. It was uniquely similar to the “Peace for Our Time” political pact made by Neville Chamberlain in 1938.

    Great Britain did not have the weapons to take on Germany at the time that Chamberlain brought about the political pact with Hitler. Although this pact has left Chamberlain’s name synonymous with cowardly capitulation, it was probably a good thing that he kept Britain out of any war. When Britain did get attacked by Germany, she was a bit more ready to take on such an enemy.

  4. Carol Sterritt:

    EThompson:
    I’m commenting a second time because I wholeheartedly agree with the point de vue of this post.

    I understand that isolationist beliefs were strong after WWI and that it could have been political suicide for FDR to engage early on in WWII. What sickens me is the thought that millions of lives could have been saved if we’d stepped in and pressured Chamberlain to wipe out Hitler after the takeover of the Sudetenland.

    One could say, “Easy for you to judge” but it is. I am familiar with centuries of history and as the infamous cliche goes, it consistently repeats itself.

    Not to wander off topic, but this is one of the reasons I despised George H.W. Bush’s decision to leave that Iraqi monster intact after Desert Storm. It was uniquely similar to the “Peace for Our Time” political pact made by Neville Chamberlain in 1938.

    Great Britain did not have the weapons to take on Germany at the time that Chamberlain brought about the political pact with Hitler. Although this pact has left Chamberlain’s name synonymous with cowardly capitulation, it was probably a good thing that he kept Britain out of any war. When Britain did get attacked by Germany, she was a bit more ready to take on such an enemy.

    Czechoslovakia had a much more defensible position compared to Poland a year later.  And France’s Army could easily have broken through while the Wehrmacht was  concentrated in the east (that was also true in 1939).  In addition, a serious coup attempt was being planned by senior German generals.  I agree that Britain’s armed forces were better prepared in 1939 compared to 1938, but Germany’s were also.  They absorbed many Czech tanks and were making more since they now controlled the Skoda Works.

    Users who have liked this comment:

    • avatar
  5. EThompson:
    Not to wander off topic, but this is one of the reasons I despised George H.W. Bush’s decision to leave that Iraqi monster intact after Desert Storm. It was uniquely similar to the “Peace for Our Time” political pact made by Neville Chamberlain in 1938.

    Now that we are off topic, I find no such fault with G.H.W. Bush.   This was taking place amidst a fury of handwringing over American hegemony.   Bush had to promise ‘no regime change’ in order to keep the western alliance together for Desert Storm, and the cadre of professional Deep Staters at the State Department insisted that we had to keep the western alliance together in order to placate anti-Americans in Europe.

    With our no-fly limits, Saddam Hussein was not a threat to any neighboring countries.   I do not see any parallel to Germany in 1938.

  6. MJBubba:
    With our no-fly limits, Saddam Hussein was not a threat to any neighboring countries.

    He had just shown to be a threat to Kuwait and always to Israel. More importantly, he never got rid of fully developed WMD labs with intact formulas, a staff of scientists, and facilities where he would imprison his ‘guinea pigs.’ Years later, after the second war, it was discovered he was perfectly set up for production as the UN neared ending the oil for food sanctions. As Condi Rice once said, “One never gets credit for being pro-active.”

    As for no-fly limits, he shot at American pilots nearly everyday!

  7. EThompson:

    MJBubba:
    With our no-fly limits, Saddam Hussein was not a threat to any neighboring countries.

    He had just shown to be a threat to Kuwait and always to Israel. More importantly, he never got rid of fully developed WMD labs with intact formulas, a staff of scientists, and facilities where he would imprison his ‘guinea pigs.’ Years later, after the second war, it was discovered he was perfectly set up for production as the UN neared ending the oil for food sanctions. As Condi Rice once said, “One never gets credit for being pro-active.”

    As for no-sky limits, he shot at American pilots nearly everyday!

    Ah, but there you go again, using logic. Logic has no place in the modern day economy, which is based on having situations that provide for perpetual, never ending and never won wars. Gotta keep the military/industrial/surveillance/government complex happy!

  8. EThompson:

    MJBubba:
    With our no-fly limits, Saddam Hussein was not a threat to any neighboring countries.

    He had just shown to be a threat to Kuwait and always to Israel. More importantly, he never got rid of fully developed WMD labs with intact formulas, a staff of scientists, and facilities where he would imprison his ‘guinea pigs.’ Years later, after the second war, it was discovered he was perfectly set up for production as the UN neared ending the oil for food sanctions. As Condi Rice once said, “One never gets credit for being pro-active.”

    As for no-fly limits, he shot at American pilots nearly everyday!

    G.H.W. Bush had just gone to war in order to kick Saddam Hussein out of Kuwait, and was very successful at that, and at establishing limits and sanctions on the S. Hussein Iraqi regime.

    Then Bill Clinton inherited a stable situation.   If American pilots were ordered not to return fire, that is on Clinton.   Do not blame GHW Bush for Clinton’s inactions.

  9. MJBubba:
    Then Bill Clinton inherited a stable situation.   If American pilots were ordered not to return fire, that is on Clinton.   Do not blame GHW Bush for Clinton’s inactions.

    What was stable? An insane person who tortured children in front of their parents, attempted to assassinate an ex-President while he was visiting Kuwait and planned the demise of most of the region including Israel? I blame an entire trio of presidents for the handling of this lunatic starting with Reagan who armed Hussein in the first place to confront Iran.

    Users who have liked this comment:

    • avatar

Leave a Reply