![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |
Reporting errors |
Garner, a racist white congressman from Texas, was his VP for 8 years , needs to be included — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.38.155.134 ( talk) 20:53, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
This is a very political subject, and I think it's very important that the current consensus of the economic community and any responses to these criticisms also be established. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aewehr ( talk • contribs) 03:53, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
I'm surprised to find nothing here about this topic, not even a link to Yalta Conference. Surely FDR's relationship to Stalin must be among the most serious criticisms of his administration? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.206.87.116 ( talk) 19:21, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
Going to the FDR criticism page I certainly expected to see a discussion of the accusations that FDR allowed Pearl Harbor to be bombed as a pretext for the US entering WWII. Maybe there's another page dedicated specifically to this (don't know, don't really care) but I would think that there if there is then there should certainly be a link to it on the FDR criticism page. Seems to me this page is less about presenting vaild criticisms of FDR and more about fellating him. Just a thought.
I'd recommend adding criticism of his courting of isolationists to his later internationalism and critics of his record on civil rights (see FDR on Civil Rights page). There was also a lot of criticism of his haughty, aristocratic demeanor.
Of course, it couldn't win his critics an election. Or get their bills passed or policies enacted. Sam 01:12, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
Rjensen (del unsourced smear by father of Big Lie)
User:Rjensen (highly misleading and false history Goebbels does not call FDR a fascist)
I feel like this article has a lot of material that it could work with, and that it needs a serious re-writing/re-structuring. I'd like to see all of the criticisms broken down, as well as some references to possible support for FDR's decisions as a contrast, and to further inform the reader about the argument.
Why is there no mention at all in this article about Roosevelt's blatantly unconstitutional expansion of central executive power that has more or less kept its bloated bureaucratic form up through the present?
Disagree. Facts are facts, opinion is opinion. That you do not like what the constitution says and favor continued violation of it does not make calling it a blatent violation of the constitution wrong. Montestruc ( talk) 21:09, 29 July 2017 (UTC) Montestruc ( talk) 21:09, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
This article has had a {{merge}} tag on it since early 2007, but there has been no discussion on it here. On the article that this was proposed to be merged with, Opposition to Roosevelt, the consensus was in favor of not merging. Accordingly, I have removed the merge tag. If you still feel that the articles should be merged, please put the tag on this article again and state your reasons. Bry9000 ( talk) 22:24, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Roosevelt has been criticized both for his doctrine of unconditional surrender, and for his plan for the "pastoralization" of post-war Germany, a plan that he used a $6 billion Lend Lease agreement to buy UK support for. [1] Both these Rooseveltian policies have been accused of prolonging the war and causing unnecessary deaths [6], [7], [8], the latter also after the end of the war. In a report on the German situation after 2 years of occupation President Herbert Hoover would in 1947 remark:
Please Rjensen ( talk · contribs), Wikipedia is not the place for hero-worship of Roosevelt or similar. I'm referring to this edit by you. Where you state "the criticism by Wikipedia editors does not count--only criticism of FDR at the time by actual people". Roosevelt drew heavy flack in the media for his plan, since it was feared it would encourage the Germans to fight on, as it also did, see the references in the other version you deleted. And to replace the text above with "Roosevelt was criticized by the Nazis for his plan for the "pastoralization" of post-war Germany. [1]" is tantamount to a travesty. As to "the criticism by Wikipedia editors does not count". Please be civil, and please bother reading the text and sources I provided before lashing out. As to "only criticism of FDR at the time by actual people" Please also read the introduction to this article, you seem to have seriously misjudged what the article is about, later criticism of Roosevelt for his unconditional surrender policy is very much admissible.-- Stor stark7 Talk 13:52, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
So far, the Allies have not offered the opposition any serious encouragement. On the contrary, they have again and again welded together the people and the Nazis by statements published, either out of indifference or with a purpose. To take a recent example, the Morgenthau plan gave Dr. Goebbels the best possible chance. He was able to prove to his countrymen, in black and white, that the enemy planned the enslavement of Germany. The conviction that Germany had nothing to expect from defeat but oppression and exploitation still prevails, and that accounts for the fact that the Germans continue to fight. It is not a question of a regime, but of the homeland itself, and to save that, every German is bound to obey the call, whether he be Nazi or member of the opposition. [10]
References
The image Image:Tax-spend.JPG is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check
This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. -- 06:20, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure all of these sources actually criticise him as a Fascist. Dougweller ( talk) 10:53, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
Why is she characterized as an "historian", I thought she only had a bachelors in English? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.184.185.8 ( talk) 02:24, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
I am not sure that it can be called criticism, but shouldn't there be a section on his and Eleanor's varied sex lives- since these were controversial if not grounds for criticism. Royalcourtier ( talk) 07:47, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
Many people ignore the major shift in American political philosophy starting in the 1880s as a reaction to the civil war and it's outcome. The progressive movement was a virulent reaction against the traditional American classical liberal abolitionist sentiment. The article uses the term "liberal" when discussing pro-FDR historians that is simply not appropriate. Progressive is the accurate term.
FDR and Wilson whom FDR served as undersecretary of the Navy and T. Roosevelt were all closely associated with the progressive movement, and were opposed to, and antagonistic toward traditionally Liberal American political thought. Montestruc ( talk) 21:06, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Criticism of Franklin D. Roosevelt. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 16:47, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
This article is mistitled. Instead of "Criticism of Franklin D. Roosevelt," it should be called, "Every Joker Who Ever Had Anything Negative to Say About the New Deal Or Franklin Roosevelt for the Last 90 Years."
If the article is supposed to cover criticism of Roosevelt at the time he was alive, then the article should be limited to materials that date from that time.
If the article is supposed to cover anybody's opinion who ever argued with the New Deal, or Keynesian economics, or Roosevelt's leadership during WWII, then the article should simply be deleted. Criticism of the New Deal should be posted in an article about the New Deal; criticism about Keynesian economics should be posted under a subject-appropriate article; et cetera. I suspect that many of the sources cited in this article -- sources that are "relevant" because of the unbelievably broad, unfocused topic -- would never survive group editing in the particular subjects that the sources are actually talking about, e.g., the effect of Keynesian economics in the Great Depression. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
MithraUnconquered (
talk •
contribs)
00:18, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
Personally, he comes across to me as a Netanyahu coalition propagandist. However, I know it needs to be pointed out through reliable sources and a neutral point of view. I hope we can work together in finding articles about him. 2601:449:4582:B3C0:7DDD:81C:9C6C:D06E ( talk) 01:25, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |
Reporting errors |
Garner, a racist white congressman from Texas, was his VP for 8 years , needs to be included — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.38.155.134 ( talk) 20:53, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
This is a very political subject, and I think it's very important that the current consensus of the economic community and any responses to these criticisms also be established. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aewehr ( talk • contribs) 03:53, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
I'm surprised to find nothing here about this topic, not even a link to Yalta Conference. Surely FDR's relationship to Stalin must be among the most serious criticisms of his administration? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.206.87.116 ( talk) 19:21, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
Going to the FDR criticism page I certainly expected to see a discussion of the accusations that FDR allowed Pearl Harbor to be bombed as a pretext for the US entering WWII. Maybe there's another page dedicated specifically to this (don't know, don't really care) but I would think that there if there is then there should certainly be a link to it on the FDR criticism page. Seems to me this page is less about presenting vaild criticisms of FDR and more about fellating him. Just a thought.
I'd recommend adding criticism of his courting of isolationists to his later internationalism and critics of his record on civil rights (see FDR on Civil Rights page). There was also a lot of criticism of his haughty, aristocratic demeanor.
Of course, it couldn't win his critics an election. Or get their bills passed or policies enacted. Sam 01:12, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
Rjensen (del unsourced smear by father of Big Lie)
User:Rjensen (highly misleading and false history Goebbels does not call FDR a fascist)
I feel like this article has a lot of material that it could work with, and that it needs a serious re-writing/re-structuring. I'd like to see all of the criticisms broken down, as well as some references to possible support for FDR's decisions as a contrast, and to further inform the reader about the argument.
Why is there no mention at all in this article about Roosevelt's blatantly unconstitutional expansion of central executive power that has more or less kept its bloated bureaucratic form up through the present?
Disagree. Facts are facts, opinion is opinion. That you do not like what the constitution says and favor continued violation of it does not make calling it a blatent violation of the constitution wrong. Montestruc ( talk) 21:09, 29 July 2017 (UTC) Montestruc ( talk) 21:09, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
This article has had a {{merge}} tag on it since early 2007, but there has been no discussion on it here. On the article that this was proposed to be merged with, Opposition to Roosevelt, the consensus was in favor of not merging. Accordingly, I have removed the merge tag. If you still feel that the articles should be merged, please put the tag on this article again and state your reasons. Bry9000 ( talk) 22:24, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Roosevelt has been criticized both for his doctrine of unconditional surrender, and for his plan for the "pastoralization" of post-war Germany, a plan that he used a $6 billion Lend Lease agreement to buy UK support for. [1] Both these Rooseveltian policies have been accused of prolonging the war and causing unnecessary deaths [6], [7], [8], the latter also after the end of the war. In a report on the German situation after 2 years of occupation President Herbert Hoover would in 1947 remark:
Please Rjensen ( talk · contribs), Wikipedia is not the place for hero-worship of Roosevelt or similar. I'm referring to this edit by you. Where you state "the criticism by Wikipedia editors does not count--only criticism of FDR at the time by actual people". Roosevelt drew heavy flack in the media for his plan, since it was feared it would encourage the Germans to fight on, as it also did, see the references in the other version you deleted. And to replace the text above with "Roosevelt was criticized by the Nazis for his plan for the "pastoralization" of post-war Germany. [1]" is tantamount to a travesty. As to "the criticism by Wikipedia editors does not count". Please be civil, and please bother reading the text and sources I provided before lashing out. As to "only criticism of FDR at the time by actual people" Please also read the introduction to this article, you seem to have seriously misjudged what the article is about, later criticism of Roosevelt for his unconditional surrender policy is very much admissible.-- Stor stark7 Talk 13:52, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
So far, the Allies have not offered the opposition any serious encouragement. On the contrary, they have again and again welded together the people and the Nazis by statements published, either out of indifference or with a purpose. To take a recent example, the Morgenthau plan gave Dr. Goebbels the best possible chance. He was able to prove to his countrymen, in black and white, that the enemy planned the enslavement of Germany. The conviction that Germany had nothing to expect from defeat but oppression and exploitation still prevails, and that accounts for the fact that the Germans continue to fight. It is not a question of a regime, but of the homeland itself, and to save that, every German is bound to obey the call, whether he be Nazi or member of the opposition. [10]
References
The image Image:Tax-spend.JPG is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check
This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. -- 06:20, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure all of these sources actually criticise him as a Fascist. Dougweller ( talk) 10:53, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
Why is she characterized as an "historian", I thought she only had a bachelors in English? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.184.185.8 ( talk) 02:24, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
I am not sure that it can be called criticism, but shouldn't there be a section on his and Eleanor's varied sex lives- since these were controversial if not grounds for criticism. Royalcourtier ( talk) 07:47, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
Many people ignore the major shift in American political philosophy starting in the 1880s as a reaction to the civil war and it's outcome. The progressive movement was a virulent reaction against the traditional American classical liberal abolitionist sentiment. The article uses the term "liberal" when discussing pro-FDR historians that is simply not appropriate. Progressive is the accurate term.
FDR and Wilson whom FDR served as undersecretary of the Navy and T. Roosevelt were all closely associated with the progressive movement, and were opposed to, and antagonistic toward traditionally Liberal American political thought. Montestruc ( talk) 21:06, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Criticism of Franklin D. Roosevelt. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 16:47, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
This article is mistitled. Instead of "Criticism of Franklin D. Roosevelt," it should be called, "Every Joker Who Ever Had Anything Negative to Say About the New Deal Or Franklin Roosevelt for the Last 90 Years."
If the article is supposed to cover criticism of Roosevelt at the time he was alive, then the article should be limited to materials that date from that time.
If the article is supposed to cover anybody's opinion who ever argued with the New Deal, or Keynesian economics, or Roosevelt's leadership during WWII, then the article should simply be deleted. Criticism of the New Deal should be posted in an article about the New Deal; criticism about Keynesian economics should be posted under a subject-appropriate article; et cetera. I suspect that many of the sources cited in this article -- sources that are "relevant" because of the unbelievably broad, unfocused topic -- would never survive group editing in the particular subjects that the sources are actually talking about, e.g., the effect of Keynesian economics in the Great Depression. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
MithraUnconquered (
talk •
contribs)
00:18, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
Personally, he comes across to me as a Netanyahu coalition propagandist. However, I know it needs to be pointed out through reliable sources and a neutral point of view. I hope we can work together in finding articles about him. 2601:449:4582:B3C0:7DDD:81C:9C6C:D06E ( talk) 01:25, 27 April 2024 (UTC)