Talk:Franklin D. Roosevelt/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Old text

This page desparately needs info on his role as a world war 2 allied leader.

---

Why the hell is his portrait and the first few paragraphs shown twice? I take this is a mistake.

Holden 27

in the book 'franklin delano roosevelt' by clark, the author states that roosevelt was systematically manipulating japan into attacking the US, so that he could have the moral support of the american people.

author also notes that in the late 30s there was a strong "isolationist" movement , especially in the republican party (FDR was a democrat) , and FDR had a hard time getting them to go to war with germany.

so this author would probabyl say that even though FDR 'didnt know abotu pearl', he knew that something would come some time, and he was actively hoping for it, and doing everything he coudl to bring it about. ie he wouldnt talk to them in diplomatic terms. he was stiff on his embargos and had his mind set ahead of time that a war was 'inevitable'.

if japan had attacked a british or french colony, then he couldnt have gotten the congress support nor american people's morale to go to war with japan.

pearl harbor clearly was a morale inflamer for the american people, even 50 years later. the theory is that roosevelt knew something like that would be necessary to get the people fired up enough to go through with the war.

(course, why were we on hawaii in the first place? i dunno)

---

I can't see why the Presidents table I added should be deleted. It's very helpful. --65.73.0.137

---

I deleted the puzzling reference to Winston Churchill as a "fellow freemason," since its inclusion gives the strong impression that the historic Casablanca conference was merely some kind of masonic conspiracy. While it is true that both FDR and WSC were freemasons, it is irrelevant to this article. Yet another indication of how the whole WWII section needs to be overhauled and expanded. Jumbo

---

On Monday, May 18, 1942, Roosevelt wrote a private letter to William Lyon Mackenzie King, Prime Minister of Canada, in which he discusses that the USA and Canada agree on an unwritten plan aiming to disperse French-Canadians in order to assimilate them more quickly.

Could someone provide a source for this? And also some more information, for example, how and where were they to be "dispersed"? Would they be forcably trucked off to the four corners of North America?

---

If it were not for Wikipedia, I would never have known that FDR ate babies. Thank you Wikipedia!

Needs two items

The FDR should include two extra details:

1. FDR added a 12th grade to public school to keep those people out of the work-force during the depression.

2. FDR was an avid stamp collector and greatly promoted the hobby, including to some extent, getting special favors from the bureau of engraving and printing. See the APS page here http://www.stamps.org/almanac/alm_halloffame_1942-45.htm#Roosevelt

profession

The box shows his profession as attorney. I believe politician would be more appropriate. He was involved in politics and public service almost continually for 30 years. If he had a significant legal career I have not seen it mentioned... if someone has knowledge of it, it would be worth a brief mention.

profession

The box shows his profession as attorney. I believe politician would be more appropriate. He was involved in politics and public service almost continually for 30 years. His legal employment seems to be "working for a Wall Street firm" from 1908 to 1913. I was a paper boy longer than that but don't think I should be biographed as a "news distributor".

Comments?Pmeisel 01:18, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

MAjor revisions to the page

I just made some extremely significant revisions to the page - though I changed little data, I did flesh out the critical perspective of whether Roosevelt may have had knowledge of Pearl Harbor ahead of time.

I rephrased many, many lines, and trimmed the part about the four freedoms speech in 1941 from the World war two section.

I added information on a critical perspective of the court packing action and the internment, and removed subjective language in several places.

While most of the information presented already existed in the page in a different format, I am very knowledgable about the events of world war two, and much of the modification was from memory. I believe that it is critically important to find references for the factual information that's presented in the article Especially:

• Records of what might / might not have been known during world war two
• Support and/or critique of the internment order (btw: I removed "concentration camp" because it's a slightly perjoritive term when compared to the Nazi version, but "camp" isn't strong enough -- maybe someone has an idea of what to do about that....)

I also feel that the article generally needs more of the following:

• More records of critical opinions of Roosevelt in the media of the day, as well as modern criticisms . In particular, more discussion of the stark contrast of opinions in the country when he became the first three termer.
• More detailed information on how Roosevelt's policies were innovative -- they were! He is portrayed here as a strong, dedicated, effective leader, but his cleverness is underrepresented
• More background information (through either text or links) so that readers have the context to understand how Roosevelt strenghtened the Federal Government further and weakened states, strengthened the executive bransh and weakened Judicial, but also congress ( the latter isn't addressed as much)

I believe strongly that my changes should be peer reviewed to maintain the neutral point of view principle, and to assist with doing that well, I will disclose my biases (though I've tried to compensate for them in my edits as best I can):

I believe that Roosevelt was a strong, capable leader, a maverick, and a competant military strategist. At the same time, I believe he was an authoritarian who re-interpeted laws illegally to suit his purposes and was quite adept at deceiving the public.

I tried to present critical views that maintained neutrality - allowing readers to loathe, admire, or have mixed feelings about the man -- but to faithfully tell the whole story. That's a lofty goal, and I'm sure I've fallen short (I'm not done yet) -- So please help!

Thanks! EggplantWizard 02:02, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

In terms of the Pearl Harbor stuff, I do feel like the article as it stands now gives too much credence to the rumors. Beyond the question of whether the evidence showed that Roosevelt "knew", the strongest evidence is the fact that the "Roosevelt knew" story makes no logical sense. Roosevelt wanted to bring the country into a war against Germany. The attack on Pearl Harbor, as it occurred, could very easily have derailed that had not the Germans obliged Roosevelt by declaring war. So the surprise attack did not particularly serve Roosevelt's goal of getting the US involved in war against Germany, and might very well have distracted it from that goal. Furthermore, and more basically - if the Japanese had attacked Pearl Harbor and the Navy had been ready for it, it's hard to imagine that the Navy being in a greater state of readiness would have somehow prevented the war. The whole argument is simply unconvincing, because it doesn't make sense on its face. john k 03:48, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I dont' fundamentally disagree with your primary point that the way the information is currently phrased might be lending it too much credibility, but while it is unlikely, there is some evidence to support such allegations, and as such, they deserve some mention in the article. As I suggested, we really need more factual referencesand footnoting so that people can more easily draw their own conclusions. I'll note that I personally don't believe that Roosevelt knew the specifics of the Pearl Harbor attack in advance, but the theory is mainstream enough (and not quite as implausible as you suggest), that it shouldn't be entirely dismissed from the article. If you can compress the text as it stands and present more facts that contradict it, that would be great. I might do it myself when I find a big block of free time. Thanks for the feedback. EggplantWizard 20:51, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I recommend a one paragraph explanation of the existence of the various Pearl Harbor theories, with a reference to one explanatory article. A full explanation of all the various evidence and theories surely justifies an article of its own. --Pmeisel 13:13, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I think the article should be at Franklin D. Roosevelt, presently a redirect, because I think he is more commonly known by the initial "D." than "Delano". This is standard practice, including on other presidential articles like James K. Polk and John F. Kennedy. Has this already been dealt with, and was it decided to have it here, or is it just here because nobody ever contested it before? Everyking 08:12, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I think Franklin D Roosevelt was a good president in many ways. One of the many was he got America out of the great depression. --67.129.78.33 17:11, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

While he may have done his best, there is evidence that shows that some of his policies contributed to the lengthening of the depression. Additionally, the "second depression" lasted until 1938, oddly only a year before WW2. It's clear the the US benefited largely from the war and boosted the nation out of economic stagnation, at the expense of other nations, of course. The argument before this one is a bit simplistic.

Title of article

Why is this article called Franklin Delano Roosevelt? It is not Wikipedia policy to title biographical articles with the person's full name. His name was Franklin Roosevelt and that is what the article should be called. Also his role in Freemasons hardly belongs in the opening section. Adam 12:04, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Garbage

I have now actually read the article, the first time I have done so. It is very poorly written, and full of silly conspiracy theories and irrelevant nonsense of various kinds (what on earth has all that garbage about Stalin got to do with Roosevelt's biography?). Are there really no serious American historians at Wikipedia? This article is a disgrace to any pretensions Wikipedia has to call itself a serious encyclopedia. I will make it my project tomorrow to write a new article. Roosevelt deserves better and so does Wikipedia. Adam 12:26, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

---

I'm sorry to say, but I thoroughly disagree. Your opinion is highly typical of those who've been brainwashed in US history classes. Please educate yourself. Your ignorance is showing. Stalin has much to do with FDR's decisions during WW2 concerning the European theater. This should be clear to any "serious" historian.

User:Vegalabs

revisionism, conspiracy, Polish nationalism

Any attempt to reinstall revisionist nonsense, conspiracy theories or Polish nationalist rants into this article will be vigorously resisted. Adam 14:53, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Health

Briefly: mid-1940s medicine was not advanced enough to recognize how bad FDR's condition was, nor the risks that he was taking (and subjecting the nation to) by running for a fourth term.

For example, we now know that

1) Paraplegics are particularly prone to hypertension (high blood pressure)

2) This is particularly true of older paraplegics, over age 60 or so

3) Hypertension is very closely correlated with a whole bunch of other problems, including heart disease and strokes

4) A diet rich in saturated fats and heavy starches correlates with heart disease and strokes, and is particularly bad for paraplegics; and

5) Smoking is also correlated with heart disease and strokes.

None of these things were known in 1944-5. FDR in 1944 was a 62 year old paraplegic who chain smoked, ate bad food, was in a high-stress job, and had sky-high blood pressure... and _nobody realized this was dangerous_. The correlation between hypertension and strokes, for example, wasn't even suggested until 1948. FDR's blood pressure was checked every month and recorded, but nobody thought that it was dangerously high; contemporary medicine thought that rapid _changes_ in blood pressure were dangerous, not hypertension per se.

There was a vague realisation that fatty food made you fat, and being fat was bad for your heart. But the etiology was a complete mystery. And in any event, FDR wasn't fat - he ate dreadful food, but he kept quite trim by swimming laps (which will burn calories fast when you can't use your legs; try it sometime). He looked slim, tan, and healthy right up to the autumn of 1944. Contemporary medicine had no way of even imagining that his arteries were shutting down from cholesterol, nor that smoking and 16-hour days were putting his whole system far into the red-line zone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paul Benjamin Austin (talk • contribs) 15:20, 24 April 2005 (UTC)

---

Thanks for those observations. I am not aware that FDR ate badly - as you say he certainly wasn't fat - so I don't think this was a factor in his early death. I think prolonged stress and chain-smoking were enough to explain it - this was also what killed Curtin. Adam 15:31, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I will write some more about FDR's health soon. I also want to add a section about FDR's attitudes to race, the Japanese-American issue, the Jewish refugee issue and the civil rights issue. Stay tuned. Adam 23:32, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

New version lost too much

This new version, besides being at a name almost never used (Franklin D. Roosevelt and Franklin Delano Roosevelt are both much more commonly used), has lost much info and links compared to the old version. Examples I've found so far are:

• Date of 'fear itself' quote
• Any mention of dime
• Hugo Black
• Wagner Act
• F.D. Roosevelt State Park
• Glass-Steagall Act
• Wiley Blount Rutledge

And I don't know how many more. I'm going to revert. Niteowlneils 00:04, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

{moved from FDR Talk}

I firmly believe major overhauls of articles, especially ones this size, should be done in-place, a) to help avoid unintentional content deletion, b) so Diff shows what's changed, c) so the History stays together. Also, I think re-naming this article is a bad idea, as [[1]] rules out "Franklin Roosevelt", and "Franklin Delano Roosevelt" and "Franklin D. Roosevelt" seem about equally common, so there's nothing gained by changing to the inital version. Niteowlneils 00:49, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I agree with statement by User:Niteowlneils above about reasons to edit the article in place. If someone (Adam Carr) wants to point out specific things which are not accurate in the article, this page would be a good place to discuss. Morris 02:32, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)

{End move}

• • This is a much cleaner article. Please can we all work on this article from here and not revert to the previous one. If someone has a problem with the name of the article, cut and paste this one into Franklin Delano Roosevelt, but do not revert to the previous article at that place. Thank you. Harro5 (talk · contribs) 02:43, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)

How can a significantly truncated article be "better"? Anyway, all editing should be done in one place (to the original article); any renaming should be done separately, using the "Move" tab. Niteowlneils 03:13, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Any cutting and pasting would make the problem that much worse--articles should be moved to keep the content, history, and Talk pages together. See Wikipedia:How to rename (move) a page, Wikipedia:How to fix cut and paste moves. Niteowlneils 03:13, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

---

This article is not "truncated" - it is nearly twice as long as the previous one, and will be longer once I add the matters mentioned above. It is also (if I say so myself) much better written and more coherent and covers much more content. The old article would be even shorter once the irrelevant rant about Stalin and other silliness was removed. On the specific points:

• The "fear itself" speech is located at the First Inaugural. I don't see what the actual date adds.
• The "Wagner Act" is refered to, by its correct name.
• Black and Rutledge are fairly minor figures but could be added to the mention of Supreme Court appointments.
• The Glass-Stegall act is not mentioned by name, but the creation of the Federal Deposit Insurance Administration is mentioned.
• There is indeed no mention of dimes or state parks. I dislike trivia of this kind. Adam 03:34, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

---

On the name of the article, Google gives:

• Franklin D. Roosevelt: 1,010,000
• Franklin Roosevelt: 640,000
• Franklin Delano Roosevelt: 470,000

I still think that "Franklin Roosevelt" should be seen as the standard version of his name, but I would not oppose a move to Franklin D. Roosevelt. I would object to a reversion to "Franklin Delano Roosevelt." Adam 03:39, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

1. The "Franklin Roosevelt" hits are misleading--if you actually look at the results, you will see most actually use either the middle name or middle initial, and are just being displayed by the search engine because it 'knows' that's who you are looking for.
2. My only objection to "Franklin D. Roosevelt" is that, since it has more than 500 in-coming links, it is impossible to know if all broken redirects are fixed.
3. I note that you didn't bother to fix all the broken double-redirs your change created.
4. Renaming and rewriting should be done separately to avoid complications like this.
5. The edits should have been done to the original article, not the redirect, to keep the content, history, and Talk page together (and having this discussion on this page is only further compounding the problem), so Diff works, etc. as I stated above.
6. Editing on the original article would also have made it more apparent what had been simpled renamed vs. what was removed. Niteowlneils 03:55, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

---

• I take your points on the renaming of the article. It seemed like a good idea at the time, which was 3am after I had spent 12 hours writing the article. I usually remember to fix redirects when I rename articles. I now think it should be moved to Franklin D. Roosevelt and the double redirects fixed.
• That said, I don't think the previous edit history and talk matter much since I have written a completely new article. If anyone really wants to see them they are not hard to find.
• These are minor matters compared to the rewrite of the article itself. It should not have been necessary for me, an Australian, to write a competent article for a US-based encyclopaedia on the longest-serving US President. I was shocked to see what a disgraceful mess the old article was - a semi-literate hodgepodge of trivia, conspiracy theories, irrelevant ramblings, and absolutely no historical context or even coherent narrative. Rather than snipe at me for not naming all the judges FDR appointed to the Supreme Court, why not ask the American history writers at Wikipedia (which I gather includes yourself) why they tolerated such a feeble excuse for a major article for so long? Adam 04:21, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Renaming the article

There was a question of renaming the article, I don't mean to break the flow with a new section, but, just from the outside, when I the think of him, the most natural names, in keeping with naming convention are, in order: 1st, Franklin D. Roosevelt; 2nd. Franklin Delano Roosevelt; 3rd, Franklin Roosevelt. If I went looking, that's how I'd search. I might not remember, or know, Deleno, but I do remember that "D." Shorter names are more natural and "Franklin D." is just how he's spoken of commonly. (There are things about working "redirects" I don't understand.) Calicocat 05:48, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• I agree. It should be "Franklin D." or "Franklin Delano".. —User:Mulad (talk) 23:53, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)
• Yes. When his first name is given, his middle initial or name almost always is as well. I think the article should be at Franklin Delano Roosevelt (or Frankln D., though I would prefer Franklin Delano). It should definitely not be at Franklin Roosevelt. —Lowellian (talk) 01:37, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)

• • Well we seem to be agreed that the article should be moved, and the majority opinion seems to be Franklin D. Roosevelt. I will move it and start on the redirects, and I hope others will do some redirecting as well. Adam 01:41, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Later: It appears that only an Administrator can do that move. Adam 03:23, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Cabinet members

I'm Sorry If I missed this but there is no listing of Cabinet Members as with previous presidents; was this moved to another section? Thanks in Advance! - DonkeyBeliever(sorry I fogot to logon)

• Now added. Harro5 (talk · contribs) 10:12, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)
  • A pity it's so outstandingly ugly. Adam 10:29, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Hey, don't shoot the messenger. Anyway, I think it looks OK. Just too big. Harro5 (talk · contribs) 10:53, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)

Eleanor and the children

The Eleanor Roosevelt is not too bad but could use some editing. The articles for the five surviving Roosevelt children are very sketchy and need a lot of work, if someone feels inclined. Adam 06:17, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thanks PMA

Good to see that we now have a qualilty article on FDR at an agreeable location on Wikipedia. Let's look now to perfect this piece as much as possible and not grumble about the naming of the article anymore. Harro5 (talk · contribs) 08:10, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)

---

I have done about 80 redirects. Someone else can do some if they like :) Adam 11:37, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Help me assess Roosevelt's conduct of American Foreign Policy after 1935.

When and why did he move from isolationism to intervention in the European war? Do you think he purposely led the United States into war? Why or Why not?

(I am writing a research paper based on these questions, and need some help)

FDR was always a Wilsonian internationalist and was never an isolationist, so he personally didn't move - he worked to shift US public opinion from isolationism to interventionism. As the article says, he believed it was in the interests of the US, as well as the right thing in general, to defeat Hitler and to help Britain and France. During 1939-41 he did everything he could to prepare US opinion to enter the war in Europe. Had Pearl Harbor not happened he would probably have done what Wilson did in 1917 - used a naval incident as a pretext for declaring war on Germany. I don't believe he wanted a war in the Pacific. Adam 01:46, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Presidents table

Could whoever is in charge of this:

{{Uspresidents}}

Please fix it so that it directs to Franklin D. Roosevelt and not Franklin Delano Roosevelt, as the article has now been moved? Adam 03:55, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Admin help needed

I just happened by, and I'm not taking sides in any of the issues discussed above -- but there's evidently been some inept moving that stranded the history. If you can't use "Move this page" to move an article, put it on WP:RM, don't cut and paste it! The history of this article now tells readers that there were no edits from 25 Feb 2002 until April 2005. When those of you editing this article think you have some stability, please make sure that the stranded history at Franklin Delano Roosevelt is integrated here, along with any other stray bits of history or talk. JamesMLane 18:19, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

NPOV dispute -- Japanese-American issues

While I mostly agree with its implied point of view, the neutrality of this section is compromised because of the manner in which it written and the facts that are presented.

For example, it is perfectly fair and neutral to point out, "No evidence was ever produced to support fears of Japanese-American espionage." However, the section then states, "A comment by De Witt shows the irrationality of the anti-Japanese agitation at this time..." The rationality and irrationality of anything is subjective, a violation of NPOV.

Later, it is stated, "It was striking that no similar steps were taken, or even suggested, against German-Americans and Italian-Americans. It is also striking that Japanese-Americans continued to serve in the U.S. armed forces throughout the war, although they were not employed in the Pacific theater." Again, this is the author's subjective analysis of the situation, which, while useful, does not conform to NPOV. This needs to be reworded.

The next paragraph states, "Conditions in the camps...were tolerable..." Again, this is subjective. What I consider tolerable may not be the same as what someone else considers tolerable. This section needs to be reworded. One way this can be done is to include primary sources that describe the conditions in the internment camps.

The next paragraph states that Roosevelt did not sign the order ending the internment "until after the November elections." It goes on to say, "This shows that his motivation was in part simply political expediency." Again, this is the author's analysis of the situation. It is opinion, not necessarily fact. The tone of the next sentence ("He was not prepared to defend Japanese-American civil rights if it meant a fight with influential Democrats, or the Army, or the Hearst press, nor if it meant he might lose California to the Republicans in 1944") implies some degree of contempt for Roosevelt or for his policy on internment on the part of the author. This needs to be revised to conform to NPOV.

Finally, the section ends with the statement, "It cannot be denied, however, that Roosevelt's action were at least in part motivated by racism." Technically, this can be denied, even though the author presents a quotation to support this statement. In order to tell the whole story, I feel that that quotation should be kept there. However, it must be analyzed much more objectively.

Japanese internment was a dark hour in U.S. civil rights history, but its presentation on Wikipedia should be neutral. The reader needs to make up his/her own mind about it. It is quite obvious that the author of this section has already made up his/her own mind and is presenting it as a subjective analysis of history, not an objective reporting of it. --Hnsampat 17:20, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

It's not only a POV issue, it is also factually incorrect. Germans and italians were held in camps during the war. In fact Germans were held all the way up to 1946, after the Japanese had been released. I had noted that in the acticle, but some one changed it. --Morrison1917

---

That would have been news to General Dwight D. Eisenhauer, former President Herbert Hüber, Admiral Chester Nimitz, Supreme Court Justice Felix Frankfurter, Treasury Secretary Henry Morgenthau and millions of other German-Americans. I don't recall Fiorello LaGuardia being locked up either. In fact only individuals actually suspected of Nazi or Fascist sympathies were interned (and not even all of them). In contrast the Japanese-Americans were interned en masse. So far as I know there was no mass internment of any ethnic community other than the Japanese, and I will revert these edits until I am persuaded, by evidence, that there was.

On the wider point, no doubt some of these sentences could be reworded. But it is part of the job of an encyclopaedia to explain historical events rather than just set out a series of facts and leave the reader guessing. Contrary to one of Wikipedants' fondest beliefs, readers don't mind articles with a POV, provided it is a reasonable one and supported by evidence. Roosevelt's actions against the Japanese-Americans, since they had no basis in military necessity and were unsupported by evidence of espionage, need to be explained. One explanation is political expediency, another is widespread anti-Asian racism, including Roosevelt's. Furthermore, to say that De Witt's statement is irrational is entirely NPOV - it is irrational (contrary to reason), since the absence of something is presented as evidence of its existence. Adam 23:41, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

Well, My main concern is that the info in the acticle is incorrect. The internment of German and Italian Americans is VERY well documented if you bother to look it up, I recently watched a documentary about it on the History Channel. But noneless, I will provide you with links so you can get the info for yourself and maybe you'll stop reverting my edits. It believe something like 11,000 German-Americans were held. While that is many many times less than the Number of Japanese held, it is still quite a few people, and while race certainly played a part in it, it is also important to note that we were not worried about an immenet German invasion, which would help explain the lower level of german internment. Also, many Germans were held well after the war, even longer than the Japanese. 11,000 is a considerable number and I believe qualifies as "mass internment." As the documentary on the History Channel mentions almost all of the Germans and Italians held WERE NOT, in any way, facsist. I would also like to say that I live in California, many of my friends Grandparents were interned and I've heard their stories, what they went through was a terrible chapter in American history. However, we cannot ignore the fact that other groups of American were treated unfairly during this period of time. I understand that you have spent quite a bit of time on this article but i simply wish to correct a factual error.

First off, look up internment on Wikipedia, it mentions the german and italian internment. (and no, i didn't not write any part of that article)

This site gives info on the internment of Germans, including personal accounts - http://www.foitimes.com/internment/

Heres a bill that Senator Feingold put infront of the senate about studying the internment of German and other Europeans - http://members.cox.net/adjacobs/S1356.htm

If you want to watch a video about it, heres a link to the History Channel Store. The video is called, "Italian-American Internment: A Secret War" - http://store.aetv.com/html/product/index.jhtml?id=42768

Authors as diverse as Howard Zinn and Michelle Milkin have written about it. If this info is not enough for you, I urge you to learn about it on your own, because IT DID HAPPEN and its a shame that this atricle has such a clear factual error. Morrison1917

---

I am quite happy to accept that 11,000 German-Americans were interred during the war. In a population of about 100 million at the time, and in a country where the Germans were the largest European ethnic minority apart from the Irish, it is a very small number. Clearly Germans (and the other European groups you refer to), were interned selectively, on the basis of some suspicion (whether justified or not), that they were or might be German or other enemy spies or agents. This is qualitatively, as well as quantitatively, quite different from what was done to the California Japanese, who were intered en masse solely because they were of Japanese orgin. This clearly was not done with the Germans, who numbered in the millions. Adam 03:28, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

Well, clearly it was not done in the huge numbers like the Japanese internment, the fact remains, European Americans WERE interned. They were taken out of their homes, put into camps and held as prisoners without due process, if thats not internment, then i don't know what it. This does include children of German immigrants who, by law, were American citizens. Many were held up to FIVE YEARS AFTER THE WAR,(which was not done to the Japanese) and many, including citizens of the United States were deported. Heres a few quotes from Republican Senator Feingold's Senate Bill - "During World War II, the United States Government branded as `enemy aliens' more than 600,000 Italian-born and 300,000 German-born United States resident aliens and their families and required them to carry Certificates of Identification, limited their travel, and seized their personal property. At that time, these groups were the two largest foreign-born groups in the United States." "During World War II, the United States Government arrested, interned or otherwise detained thousands of European Americans, some remaining in custody for years after cessation of World War II hostilities, and repatriated, exchanged, or deported European Americans, including American-born children, to hostile, war-torn European Axis nations, many to be exchanged for Americans held in those nations." While this may not seem like as big of a deal to you as the Japanese internment, IT DID HAPPEN, and it deserves mention. At the very least it invalidates the statment - "It was striking that no similar steps were taken, or even suggested, against German-Americans and Italian-Americans." While not the same it is similar and deserves to be mentioned in the article. That statment in the article would make the reader assume that NOTHING happened to German and Italian Americans, which is completely incorrect. Morrison1917

I'm sorry you are getting so worked up about this, but my statement in the article is correct and nothing you have said proves it to be incorrect. There were millions of Americans of German descent, and by your own account only 11,000 of them were interned. That is not mass internment such as was done with all Californians of Japanese descent. It was not the same, it was not similar. It can be mentioned in the article, but the qualitative and quantitative difference in treatment of European and Japanese will also need to be mentioned. Adam 06:12, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

Well, I'm not getting terribly worked up about it, I'm simply rather shocked at how much i had to write to just get the mention of the internment in the article. This article is neither yours nor mine and I would really love to hear the opinions of some other people on this matter. You said "In fact only individuals actually suspected of Nazi or Fascist sympathies were interned." that is clearly incorrect. It seems like you think that since the German and other european internment wasn't as large as the Japanese was that it doesn't count as an internment. But an internment is an internment, simple as that. As far as the "qualitative" difference, I don't see how you could tell a german-american citizen who was held as a prisoner in a internment camp until 1950 then deported to a war torn and destroyed land that their suffering was any less than anyone else held in an american camp during World War 2. The fact is thousands of European-Americans were held in camps for as long as the government wanted without any consideration for the prisoners basic civil liberties and without any reasonable suspicion. Thats an internment no matter how you look at it. While the story of Japanese Internment is much more far reaching and extensive I don't think that bringing up the reality of European internment takes away from the Japanese internment in any way. While I thank you for adding a little info on the subject i would love to see a more well rounded explaination. Morrison1917

---

You can go on repeating yourself all night, but you still haven't produced any evidence that there was mass internment of German-Americans, proportionate to that inflicted on Japanese-Americans. I repeat that there were millions of Americans of German descent, and if as you say 11,000 of them were interned, that is a tiny proportion. I presume this was done because the FBI or someone else decided these people were security risks. Maybe they were right, maybe they weren't. But even if all these internments were thoroughly unjustified, that is still not the same thing as the mass internment of all Japanese-Americans in California.

You write: You said "In fact only individuals actually suspected of Nazi or Fascist sympathies were interned." that is clearly incorrect - How do you know it is incorrect? Have you read all their FBI files? Adam 07:48, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

Have a read all their FBI files ? haha, no, of course not. Theres no need to get sassy. Several bills are pending before congress that exonerates the German and Italian Americans held in the camps and offers them an offical apology. Also, this issue has been studied and studied and it has been made clear in every single investigation that very very very few of the people held had any sympathy for the Nazi cause. The fact remians that these Americans were held in camps and that is extremely relavant to the article, regardless of your POV. I do plan to mention this in the article very soon and I hope that my edits will meet with your approval, becuase its clear that your opinion is the only one that matters. Morrison1917

If you edit the article in a way which implies that internment of German-Americans or Italian-Americans was equivalent to the mass internment of Japanese-Americans, I will revert that edit, because that is a historical falsehood. Adam 09:32, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

Ok, I made my edit. I kept that line about there being no "mass" internment and everything i stated is fact and quite relevant. I think that it deserves at least the couple of sentences i gave it. Morrison1917

Your edit does not make it clear whether these 900,000 people were (a) resident aliens, ie German or Italian nationals living in the US, (b) naturalised US citizens of German or Italian birth, or (c) native-born US citizens of German or Italian descent. If they were (a), then the restrictions you describe were perfectly reasonable and were standard procedure in all beligerent countries (indeed in most countries resident enemy aliens were interned as a matter of course). If they were (b) then these restrictions may or may not have been justified, depending on the assessment made by the FBI of the danger they posed (don't forget there was a large pro-Nazi German organization called the German-American Bund active before the war). If they were (c) then the restrictions were unjustified unless there was evidence that a specific individual was an enemy sympathiser. This is not really a relevant discussion for this article, but I think you need to clarify this. (Incidentally, you really can't use these Congressional resolutions as evidence of anything except political pandering to the ethnic vote.) Adam 10:53, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

Ok, my edits are still there for a moment, maybe we're getting somewhere.

I don't delete edits for no reason, I delete them if I think they are innaccurate and/or irrelevant. That's why I deleted your earlier edits. As a result, we now have better edits. The more we argue, the better edits we get. Adam 12:41, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

First off, I don't think Ted Kennedy is "pandering" to anyone, Boston isn't exactly a hot bed of German nationalism and he certainly doesn't need the votes. The 900,000 included all three groups, resident aliens, natualized citizens, and US born citizens. Many of the US born citizens affected were children of German or Italian immigrants, though some had been here for generations . It is true that American and International law (at least at the time) allows for the detainment of citizens of nations the country is at war with, the constitutionality of those laws can be debated, but they were on the books at the time. So, legally, America could detain immigrants from Germany or Japan or Italy etc. The problem is that many of these people were citizens of the United States, not resident aliens, hence the civil rights violation. As far as the German American Bund goes, they were never a "large organization." The Wiki article on them says at their peak they had at most 25,000 members and I've heard numbers lower than that. What influence they had they lost by the time the war started and were really at their peak in the mid 30's. Compare that to the number of German-Americans in the Communist Party or other leftist organizations and you will see how small the German American Bund was. Even amoung "radical" groups it had little influence over the German-American community. So that couldn't explain the dentention and the civil rights violations of hundreds of thousands. Very few of those detained had any contact with anything close to the Bund. I urge you to study the info for yourself, you'll see that almost all Europeans affected were completely innocent, just like the Japanese. (Don't get in a huff, I'm not comparing their situations, just saying that BOTH groups of people were unjustly detained.) I wonder why you are so hostile to mentioning this in the article ? It's 3 sentences while the Japanese internment has 3 paragraphs. It certainly is relavent to the article. FDR's horrible civil rights record is probibly his worse failure and this is another example of that. If you feel the need to re-write it some, go right ahead, but I do think (and I think most people would agree) that it is quite relavant. Morrison1917

---

The section under "Posterity" that claims that Reagan disassembled FDR's coalition is historically incorrect. The coalition fell apart much earlier, when LBJ antagonized white voters, primarily in the South but also elsewhere, through his Civil Rights programs. I suggest that we remove Reagan from this section and substitute something like this: "a coalition of voters supporting the Democratic Party which would survive intact until the 1960s and in part until the 1970s, when it was finally shattered by Richard Nixon's Southern Strategy, which was a successful nationwide attempt to recruit into the Republican Party suburban whites, many of whom were frightened by the civil rights policies of Lyndon Johnson."

--Stanley W.

I have no problems with that, although it could be noted that the Democrats retained control of the Congress though the Nixon and Reagan eras, losing only in 1994. The Roosevelt coalition rotted from the top down - first the White House, then the Senate, then the House, now the state legislatures. Also I'm not sure the word "suburban" is either strictly accurate or relevant. It was white rural southerners who defected first. Adam 11:14, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

---

The sentence that states that isolationism disappeared completely after Pearl Harbor is also historically incorrect. I would like permission to add brief information (with wiki links) to the pro-German activities of right-wing Republicans such as Cissy Patterson and Colonel Robert R. McCormick throughout World War II

--Stanley W.

As a broad generalisation I think I am correct - these are very minor figures and minor exceptions to the general statement. I don't think in a biopgraphical article about FDR the exceptions are important enough to note. Perhaps you could insert the word "almost". Adam 11:14, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

Not just California

The current article emphasizes Japanese internment from California, but it really happened all over the west coast, including Canada. Of course, that's probably the sort of "trivia" you won't allow me to add (in blatant disregard for the text at the bottom of all edit windows "If you do not want your writing to be edited mercilessly and redistributed at will, do not submit it."). [2][3][4] Niteowlneils 15:01, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

What happened in Canada is not the concern of this article. The west coast of the US consists of California, Oregon and Washington. If there were many Japanese in Oregon and Washington in 1941 I'd be surprised. Spare me your silly sarcasm - if you want to edit the article you are free to do so. Adam 09:24, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

"spinning out"

"...while spinning out the negotiations..." that's certainly not US English--what does it mean in {whatever} English? Niteowlneils 15:25, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

Communist Party

The Communist lead CIO unions had tremendous growth during FDR's time in office. The Communist Pary's influence wained later on because of post war anti-communism and internal party fighting. Morrison1917

NPOV

As written this article is riddled with dubious statements, anti-Roosevelt slant, and libertarian POV. Examples:

The first two paragraphs in the "Private crises" section: most of this rates a "so what?", looks to have been inserted into the article to make FDR look bad, and should probably be pared down to just a few sentences.

Numerous instances of dubious libertarian POV in the "First term: the New Deal" section:

"...the Democrats (which, unlike today, had traditionally been a party of small government and laissez faire economics)..."

"...and to a leader who had grown up to privilege and had no coherent plan for solving America's problems other than a genial optimism."

"Roosevelt indeed had no systematic economic beliefs at all."

"Contrary to popular belief, however, the Depression was not cured by Roosevelt's programs, collectively known as the New Deal. The economic theories of John Maynard Keynes were not widely known in the United States, and it is doubtful that Roosevelt ever knew of them. Even the large appropriations that Roosevelt extracted from Congress and spent on relief and assistance to industry were not enough to provide a sufficient fiscal stimulus to revive so large an economy as that of the United States."

"This was mainly because the high tariff barriers erected in response to the Depression were not removed, and without a revival of international trade there could be no full recovery."

"It took the massive growth in government spending during World War II to restore industrial production to its 1929 level and eliminate unemployment."

More dubious and probably unsubstantiated POV in the "Civil rights and refugees" section:

"Roosevelt's anti-Semitism became an important factor in deciding government policy on the Jewish refugee issue before and during World War II."

"Roosevelt's attitudes to both African-Americans and Jews remain a striking contrast with his social liberalism and generosity of spirit on most other issues."

Kaibabsquirrel 22:04, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

The first two statements have been inserted into the text I wrote, and I have now deleted them. All the other statements you quote are firmly grounded in the sources and have nothing to do with "libertarian bias" (I am a social democrat, not a libtertarian). Adam 00:30, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

Okay...but, for example, this statement: "Contrary to popular belief, however, the Depression was not cured by Roosevelt's programs" is a POV. It *is* widely believed that his programs cured the Depression. It would be better to say that "The popular belief is that Roosevelt's programs cured the Great Depression. Historians and economists debate over the extent to which this is true." The statement that international trade was necessary for a full recovery and tariffs harmed the recovery is free-trade POV. How about starting that sentence with "Some argue that this was mainly because..." "Roosevelt's anti-Semitism"? How about "Roosevelt's alleged anti-Semitism"? Kaibabsquirrel 00:49, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

I don't object to the first two changes. Roosevelt's anti-Semitism is a documented fact, not an allegation. Adam 01:04, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

Thanks Adam, I'll go ahead and make those two changes and remove the NPOV tag for now. As for the anti-Semitism charge I'm going to have to do some research pro and con to see what specific sources say. Kaibabsquirrel 05:22, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

The article is careful to explain what is meant by the term "anti-Semitism" in relation to people of FDR's class and generation. It does not mean that they hated Jews or wished to carry out anti-Semitic acts. It means they held certain stereotyped views about Jews (among them the belief that they complained all the time about anti-Semitism), which influenced certain of his decisions, notably on the refugee issue. Adam 05:31, 30 May 2005 (UTC)