Talk:Franklin D. Roosevelt

FDR's Socialism

Franklin D rossevelt,FDR introduced socialism into the American thinking by taking advantage of America's desperation at the time. His calls for "change" were nothing more than code words for changing America's free enterprise system to one where the state controlled the economy. Many members of his braintrust were communist such as Alfred Heist who was later discoverd to have communist ties. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yocrap (talk • contribs) 18:15, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

{{editsemiprotected}}

Section 8.3.2

<snippage> He never warned Admiral Husband Kimmel or Lt. Gen. Walter Short after reception of the message before the Pearl Harbor attack.

While warning was sent to US Army and Naval Commanders in Hawaii, it was not received in time due to a bureaucratic error. The message was sent via Western Union Telegram to the West Coast and RCA Radio to Honolulu, it's contents in a cipher. This was the standard method of communicating with the Hawaiian Islands at the time when atmospheric conditions prevented direct communications, as was happening on that day. But the message was not marked with any urgent notations, so it was placed in the outgoing que and sent in order received. This was intentional on the part of the Generals in Washington, it was felt that any "urgent" message sent to the commanders in Hawaii might tip off Japanese spies on the West Coast. The plan was to alert the Army and Navy in Hawaii so they could lay a trap for the attacking Japanese. As it was, the message was received at Navy Headquarters from long after the attack had concluded.

From the record of the Congressional Hearing on Pearl Harbor

After receiving the message Colonel French personally took charge of its dispatch. Learning that the War Department radio had been out of contact with Honolulu since approximately 10:20 a. m. he hereupon immediately decided that the most expeditious manner of getting the message to Hawaii was by commercial facilities; that is, Western Union to San Francisco, thence by commercial radio to Honolulu. The message was filed at the Army signal center at 12:01 a. m. (6:31 a. m., Hawaii); teletype transmission to Western Union completed at 12:17 p. m. (6:47 a. m., Hawaii); received by RCA Honolulu 1:03 p. m. (7:33 a. m., Hawaii); received by signal office, Fort Shafter, Hawaii, at approximately 5:15 p. m. (11:45 a. m., Hawaii) after the attack. It appears that the teletype arrangement between RCA in Honolulu and Fort Shafter was not operating at the particular hour the message was received with the result that it was dispatched by a messenger on a bicycle who was diverted from completing delivery by the first bombing.

Velovich (talk) 05:54, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Uh, what do you want edited? Pie is good ^{(Apple is the best)} 00:09, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

 Not done Requested edit unclear; no verifiable source provided.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 16:16, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Elected to three terms in office?

FDR was elected 4 times not three (as it says in the first line of the article). Just needs to be corrected or explained. Perhaps the author of the passage was suggesting that since he only served 3 months of his 4th term, that the 4th term doesn't count, but he was elected 4 times. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.78.179.186 (talk) 06:10, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, of course he was elected as President four times: 1932, 1936, 1940, and 1944. An editor made that erroneous change the day before and it has been reverted. JGHowes ^talk - 21:15, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Three years after his death, congress passed the Twenty-second Amendment, which states that no president will ever serve more then two terms. The Amendment was ratified four years later and placed in the US Constitution. Although it has been critized by many presidents since Roosevelt, congress states that it was put there for the consideration of the president's health. (KdWiki (talk) 15:26 11 June 2009 (UTC) Added by Keith Dancer, 08:25, 11 June 2009 (PST))

Possable vandalism

"Franklin Roosevelt is also related to several presidents by blood or marriage, including George Washington, John Adams, John Quincy Adams, Ulysses Grant, William Henry Harrison, Benjamin Harrison, James Madison, Theodore Roosevelt, William Taft, Zachary Taylor, and Martin Van Buren."

Was reading though and saw this and seriously doubting some are those are true. It under Personal Life.

67.52.248.218 (talk) 19:31, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Removed. It was added in July by a user with a less than stellar record. DCEdwards¹⁹⁶⁶ 19:45, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Nazi Germany or just Germany?

I believe that the phrase "Britain warred with Nazi Germany" is a violation of POV and leads the reader into a false sense that all Germans who fought in WWII were Nazis. I fixed the edit, but someone changed it back. Please tell me why?--Jojhutton (talk) 20:28, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Regardless of whether all German soldiers were Nazis, Germany was a Nazi state which is what is being referred to in the sentence. DCEdwards¹⁹⁶⁶ 20:36, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Regardless of the meaning, it is ambiguous and can be misread, Especially by someone who may have very little knowledge on the topic. POV must take precedent in this case.--Jojhutton (talk) 20:42, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I must agree with the user who found that there is a POV problem in referring to Germany as "Nazi" Germany, but for a different reason. To label a nation state by its politics in order to differentiate it from the norm is highlighting that the author believes there to be a norm and a certain point when Germany changes over to "Nazi" Germany - and vice versa. This is a definite expression of the author's preference to differentiate the state at different times in its history - all be it an accepted one, at least in this present point in history when referencing Germany preceding and during World War Two. To analogize, it would be like referring to the 2003 war between the United States and Iraq as the invasion of Iraq by the "Republican" United States. Naturally, one could state differences in the analogy (e.g., the Nazi's held complete despotic power of the government - the Republicans were a democratically elected political power who tolerated the existence of opposing political parties that were elected, etc.); however, I think the analogy is good for expressing how unquestionably charged with a personal preference labeling the actions and title of state by the political party in control of that state's government can be. Therefore, to remove potential bias, the State of Germany should probably be referred to as such, without political labeling, unless specifically talking about the politics of the state.

Pearl Harbor

Section 8.3.2

<snippage> He never warned Admiral Husband Kimmel or Lt. Gen. Walter Short after reception of the message before the Pearl Harbor attack.

While warning was sent to US Army and Naval Commanders in Hawaii, it was not received in time due to a bureaucratic error. The message was sent via Western Union Telegram to the West Coast and RCA Radio to Honolulu, it's contents in a cipher. This was the standard method of communicating with the Hawaiian Islands at the time when atmospheric conditions prevented direct communications, as was happening on that day. But the message was not marked with any urgent notations, so it was placed in the outgoing que and sent in order received. This was intentional on the part of the Generals in Washington, it was felt that any "urgent" message sent to the commanders in Hawaii might tip off Japanese spies on the West Coast. The plan was to alert the Army and Navy in Hawaii so they could lay a trap for the attacking Japanese. As it was, the message was received at Navy Headquarters from long after the attack had concluded.

From the record of the Congressional Hearing on Pearl Harbor

After receiving the message Colonel French personally took charge of its dispatch. Learning that the War Department radio had been out of contact with Honolulu since approximately 10:20 a. m. he hereupon immediately decided that the most expeditious manner of getting the message to Hawaii was by commercial facilities; that is, Western Union to San Francisco, thence by commercial radio to Honolulu. The message was filed at the Army signal center at 12:01 a. m. (6:31 a. m., Hawaii); teletype transmission to Western Union completed at 12:17 p. m. (6:47 a. m., Hawaii); received by RCA Honolulu 1:03 p. m. (7:33 a. m., Hawaii); received by signal office, Fort Shafter, Hawaii, at approximately 5:15 p. m. (11:45 a. m., Hawaii) after the attack. It appears that the teletype arrangement between RCA in Honolulu and Fort Shafter was not operating at the particular hour the message was received with the result that it was dispatched by a messenger on a bicycle who was diverted from completing delivery by the first bombing.

Velovich (talk) 14:01, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Why is there absolutely no mention whatsoever of the various "FDR knew beforehand and let it happen to get us into the war" conspiracy theories? I'm not asking because I think there should be, but partly out of curiousity given how old and somewhat prevalent they are. I'm also asking because we're having a big debate over in the Patton article about including mentioning a book that claims the U.S. tried to assassinate Patton, and when that failed, "allowed" the Soviets to kill him. I'm hoping to use whatever precedent you use to keep the PH conspiracy theories out of here over there. :-) Fred8615 (talk) 15:03, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

My guess would be that none of them proved any more than fringe theories. If anyone knows of some significant work that we can cite that will add to the article, please let us know. Padillah (talk) 16:37, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Were I the final editor of the FDR entry to Wiki, I'd exclude the assorted conspiracy theories on the simple basis that they are unverifiable at best. Most of them, if not all, stem from poor scholarship on the part of the theorist. As with most conspiracy theories, a quick look at the available information will show the theory to be smoke and mirrors. A little knowledge can be a dangerous thing - not knowing any better, in my own young adulthood, I once came across some information about the engines on a specific helicopter type. These engines were manufactured by General Electric. In my youth and exuberance, I took this to mean that the engines for this helicopter were *electric engines*. There was, of course, a different possibility, but I was simply blind to the idea that a company like General Electric making a gas turbine engine. Electric was in their name, therefore... Conspiracy theories are typically built the same way - on a foundation of a little information, no follow up, and a desire to "know something the rest of the world doesn't" - hubris. A *separate* page on FDR conspiracy theories would be a better place for such things - it gives them coverage, but away from the actual, verifiable history of FDR. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Velovich (talk • contribs) 05:53, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Research help request

I have not been able to find verification of a section of the article Fenway Park found at this link. I am able to verify that FDR gave his final campaign speech at the park in 1944, which is mentioned in the article introduction. However, numerous searches only state that the 1940 speech promising to keep troops home, as mentioned in the linked section, occurred in Boston but not specifically at Fenway Park. If a researcher involved with this article or the US Presidents project has information about the location of the 1940 speech, please respond here. Thanks in advance – Sswonk (talk) 10:21, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Marijuana prohibition

FDR also effectively banned marijuana in the United States (through the 1937 tax act), should that be covered in the article? Wandering Courier (talk) 19:56, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I would think this is more impactful to the Marijuana article (and maybe the 1937 Tax Act article) than as a mention here. Padillah (talk) 16:41, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Some FDR policy that is left out, perhaps due to bias?

In the interest of fairness, I suggest adding one or both of the following. The first is an executive order which FDR signed on April 27, 1942. Roosevelt: "In a message to the Congress on April 27, 1942, I stated: 'Discrepancies between low personal incomes and very high personal incomes should be lessened; and I therefore believe that in time of this grave national danger, when all excess income should go to win the war, no American citizen ought to have a net income, after he has paid his taxes, of more than $25,000 a year.'" Also, it might be helpful to include some of the following:

"FDR was a past master at the use of taxation to convey the image of the hour. He explained at one point that he would prefer 'to see a tax which would tax all income above $100,000 at the rate of 99.5%' This even shocked his budget director, but the president's joking comeback was a revealing one: 'Why not? None of us is ever going to make $100,000 a year. How many people report on that much income?' Roosevelt in fact went ever further than this. In 1942 and again in 1943, he proposed that all income above $25,000 ($50,000 for familes) be taxed away, saying that "all excess income should go to win the war. Inequities, he warned, 'seriously affect the morale of soldiers and sailors, farmers and workers, imperiling efforts to stabilize wages and prices, and thereby impairing the effective prosecution of the war.' When this income limit got nowhere in Congress, FDR acted on his own, handing down an executive order limiting after-tax salaries to $25,000 plus certain allowances, only to have his action indignantly repealed by Congress."

One last honest idea, it might be helpful to make a note after the table of unemployment percentages for each year FDR was in office of the unemployment rate in 1931, which was 16.3% or 8.02 million unemployed. This last peice might help tell the truth about how long it took FDR just to get the unemployment rate back down to what it was right before he took office, and that most of that was only due to the war, not his harmful economic policies.--Triballiz (talk) 04:17, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Foreign Policy (WWII)

An interesting detail wrt. early phases of WWII and U.S. stance to avoid selling war materiel to belligerent nations, is that Finland which was fighting against Soviet invasion in a conflict which was to become known as the Winter War, was allowed to purchase 55 Brewster Buffalo aircraft from U.S. Navy in December 1939. See Brewster_Buffalo#Finland. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.142.45.203 (talk) 22:45, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

"Greatest President Ever"

This bald statement is not true. Certainly, nearly all historians hold him in very high regard. But what about Lincoln? Or Washington? They've been considered "the greatest" several times. It would be accurate to say "one of the greatest". 129.120.177.129 (talk) 21:03, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Fixed. Thanks for noting that. - NuclearWarfare ^{contact me}_{My work} 00:33, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Was he really not a U.S. Citizen?

He looks Italian to me. Comments? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Harryhead123 (talk • contribs) 19:56, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

No, he was an American-born citizen, without any Italian "blood." FDR's father, James Roosevelt, and his mother, Sara, were each from wealthy old New York families, of Dutch and French ancestry respectively. NuclearWarfare _(Talk) 20:02, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Correction

What is the correct one? Image:ER FDR Campobello 1903.jpg in 1903, or 1905? 118.136.64.227 (talk) 11:45, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Can we stop referring to families as "old" please? All families are of equal age. When this article is next edited this problem should be attended to. It sounds snobbish and dated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.3.241.31 (talk) 03:13, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Isn't his middle name delanor, not delano —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.70.59.147 (talk) 16:56, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Franklin D. Roosvelt

I would say spanish style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.171.72.63 (talk) 04:05, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Radio; The Ultimate Franklin D. Roosevelt

we had the only thing thats fears is fear itself -Franklin D. Roosevelt in WAC network in 1919 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.90.71.164 (talk) 22:37, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

photo monument of roosevelt in Oslo

this could be used for illustration of the page http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Roosevelt-statue-in-Oslo.JPG

and it could be explained what was the reason for the city to dedicate this monument to him. --Stefanbcn (talk) 12:26, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

FDR related to the Illuminati, int'l bankers, Habsurgs

I heard in the movie Zeitgeist that FDR was related to like int'l bankers and such. Now I know Zeitgeist is not the most reliable of sources but if anybody else has any evidence, information on this topic post it here so we can contribute to this wiki. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.46.59.242 (talk) 18:24, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

• This is an encyclopedia, not a dumping ground for pop culture conspiracy theories. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 19:09, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Wrong date elected?

On whitehouse.gov, it said that FDR was elected in november, and here it said he was elected in march. Is there a reason? --Toad_rules (talk) 00:29, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

FDR was elected in November of 1932. Inaugurated March of 1933.THD3 (talk) 10:36, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Business plot

Real or not, the Business plot should be mentioned. A simple link in "related articles" is not enough...--Desyman44 (talk) 17:16, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

FDR's purposed 100% tax rate

The article should include information of FDR's purposed 100% tax rate. He purposed a 100 percent top marginal tax rate. A few months after Pearl Harbor FDR stated that the nation was under “grave national danger,” and that because of this “no American citizen ought to have a net income, after he has paid his taxes, of more than $25,000 a year." Roosevelt was proposing, in effect, what amounted to a maximum wage—at an income level that would equal, in our contemporary dollars, about $300,000.

I might be able to gather up some information this upcoming week and write something up... but I have no idea if there is a way to post it up to be edited for neutrality before being posted into the main article... post it in its entirety here? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.65.202.175 (talk) 06:58, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, I think this is going to be a very difficult undertaking for you as anything tagged with "100% Taxation Rate" or anything of the like is almost certainly going to be sensationalism and marred in the politics of today, but if multiple reliable sources can be found stating this than I can see no reason why it would not be added. Xenocide^{Talk|Contributions} 02:18, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to see multiple reliable sources that he "purposed" any legislation. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 04:47, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

"the only U.S. President elected to four terms"

Shouldn't the article point out that he was the only President elected to three terms, too? A sentence like "the only President elected to more than two terms", perhaps. All Hallow's (talk) 06:36, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

That's a good point. →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 11:26, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I've got something. My edit summary was supposed to read "We'll see if this is well received." superluser_tc 2009 October 07, 07:59 (UTC)

The "more than two terms" formulation is the best one. But "only ... elected to four terms" is neither incorrect nor deficient. It's not possible to be elected to four terms unless one is elected to a first, then a second, then a third term, first. -- JackofOz (talk) 08:39, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

It is insufficient, because it leaves the possibility that someone else could have been elected to three. →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 11:47, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

At the moment it reads "a four term president and the only U.S. President elected to more than two terms", and that seems just about perfect. →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 12:26, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

FA Star?

This is a featured article, shouldn't it have the star on it? Please excuse me if I'm wrong. Connormah (talk) 01:46, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Proposed Correction to "Paralytic Illness" Section

I plan to remove in a few days the assertion: "However, without access to FDR's detailed medical records—which are, by all reports, unaccounted-for [33]-- it is impossible to be certain of that premise", and the reference it cites, the book "Conspiracy of Silence". The reference does not support the assertion. I read the book. It only very briefly mentions FDR's paralytic illness, and nothing about the cause of the illness. The book does document a lack of detailed medical records concerning FDR's later health, but does not discuss earlier records. There are adequate medical records concerning FDR's paralytic illness, as cited in the Journal of Medical Biography article. The reason it is impossible to know for sure the cause of the paralytic illness is simply that a spinal fluid exam was not done, as stated in the separate article on FDR's illness. For some strange reason, the link to the separate article was also removed. I'll clean that up too. Anyone who objects can discuss here. DG 174.21.117.215 (talk) 03:01, 21 October 2009 (UTC)