Who was the better president: Franklin Roosevelt or Ronald Reagan?

[TheReckoning]

Why do people still parrot the lie that the New Deal ended the Great Depression? Or that FDR was somehow crucial to winning the 2nd World War?

It’s also funny how people say Reagan was too harsh on communities of color with his anti-drug policies, yet dismiss FDR sending 100,000+ people to prison for their ethnicity.

I voted FDR, but he was no savior.

[TheReckoning]

I hate Ronald Reagan so much it's unreal.

Reagan is obviously the more libertarian of these two presidents

Even when accounting for inflation, Reagan grew the debt by more in terms of raw dollars than FDR did. Oh, and he was only in office for ~2/3rds the amount of time. FDR had a multiple-front war to fight and a depression to dig us out of. What's Ronnie's excuse for the big price tag?

The debt grew by 1048% under FDR vs  186% under Reagan

https://www.thebalance.com/us-debt-by-president-by-dollar-and-percent-3306296

Ronnie also had to rebuild our military after the disastrous post Vietnam cuts and the one sided nature of post Vietnam detente.

I said in raw dollars. FDR grew the debt by $236 billion, equivalent to $1.08 trillion in 1980 dollars. Reagan grew it by $1.86 trillion-- almost $800 billion more than Roosevelt. Focusing on the percentage-of-debt figure is unfair because Roosevelt's spending at the time was without precedent. But that makes sense given the circumstances he found himself in. Again: What is Reagan's excuse?

And you don’t think that creating this new precedent was problematic?

[TheReckoning]

But at no point do I think he acted with malintent-- something I most definitely ascribe to Reagan.

Then you clearly don’t know Reagan- or FDR- that well.

If sending 120,000 people to prison for their ethnicity isn’t “malintent” then I don’t know what is. And the main reason why Reagan was such a unifying force (even among those whom vehemently disagreed with him) was because everyone at the time thought that he was acting in the best interest of everyone.

What I find ironic about this whole situation is that scholarly opinion Reagan’s job as president has risen considerably since his term ended, while opinion among the general left has declined. Probably due to considerable frustration and hatred towards the right from the modern left, and they ascribed Reagan as being the father of the modern right.

[TheReckoning]

What I find ironic about this whole situation is that scholarly opinion Reagan’s job as president has risen considerably since his term ended, while opinion among the general left has declined. Probably due to considerable frustration and hatred towards the right from the modern left, and they ascribed Reagan as being the father of the modern right.

The "scholars" also think Woodrow Wilson was a top-ten president. I have learned to not pay attention to a single thing they say.

Don’t let your superiority complex get too ahead of you, John.

I don’t think they rank Wilson in the top 10, but upper half, yeah. Although if you’re just gonna say FDR won us WW2, you might as well say Wilson won us WW1, so.

[TheReckoning]

What I find ironic about this whole situation is that scholarly opinion Reagan’s job as president has risen considerably since his term ended, while opinion among the general left has declined. Probably due to considerable frustration and hatred towards the right from the modern left, and they ascribed Reagan as being the father of the modern right.

The "scholars" also think Woodrow Wilson was a top-ten president. I have learned to not pay attention to a single thing they say.

Don’t let your superiority complex get too ahead of you, John.

I don’t think they rank Wilson in the top 10, but upper half, yeah. Although if you’re just gonna say FDR won us WW2, you might as well say Wilson won us WW1, so.

Somebody with your policy orientation might not approve of this, but the vast majority of Americans see victory in World War II as both much more significant historically and much more imperative morally than victory in World War I.

It’s only more significant historically because of their hasn’t been another world War since. World War 2 has become to be seen as, to refer to a term used for the First World War, the “war to end all wars.”

And while World War II was arguably a more significant war to win, let’s not act like the Central Powers winning the 1st World War was even close to being neutral on its effect in the world, instead of decidedly worse.

[TheReckoning]

What I find ironic about this whole situation is that scholarly opinion Reagan’s job as president has risen considerably since his term ended, while opinion among the general left has declined. Probably due to considerable frustration and hatred towards the right from the modern left, and they ascribed Reagan as being the father of the modern right.

The "scholars" also think Woodrow Wilson was a top-ten president. I have learned to not pay attention to a single thing they say.

Don’t let your superiority complex get too ahead of you, John.

I don’t think they rank Wilson in the top 10, but upper half, yeah. Although if you’re just gonna say FDR won us WW2, you might as well say Wilson won us WW1, so.

Somebody with your policy orientation might not approve of this, but the vast majority of Americans see victory in World War II as both much more significant historically and much more imperative morally than victory in World War I.

It’s only more significant historically because of their hasn’t been another world War since. World War 2 has become to be seen as, to refer to a term used for the First World War, the “war to end all wars.”

And while World War II was arguably a more significant war to win, let’s not act like the Central Powers winning the 1st World War was even close to being neutral on its effect in the world, instead of decidedly worse.

The Central Powers were reactionary and highly militarist, but at no point did they attempt a war of racial extermination (Generalplan Ost, Drang nach Osten, etc. etc.). They are not comparable.

Armenian Genocide?

Keep in mind I did say that World War wasn’t as significant to win as WW2- who knows how many the Nazis would’ve killed had the conquered the East- but to say it was insignificant is also foolish from a historical perspective. Therefore, if one is going to credit FDR with the win in WW2, they might as well credit Wilson with the win in WW1 (although it wouldn’t be as influential on his ranking for reasons already stated). Not to mention the Central Powers would’ve absolutely won decisively without the USA substantially helping the Entente.

[TheReckoning]

What I find ironic about this whole situation is that scholarly opinion Reagan’s job as president has risen considerably since his term ended, while opinion among the general left has declined. Probably due to considerable frustration and hatred towards the right from the modern left, and they ascribed Reagan as being the father of the modern right.

The "scholars" also think Woodrow Wilson was a top-ten president. I have learned to not pay attention to a single thing they say.

Don’t let your superiority complex get too ahead of you, John.

I don’t think they rank Wilson in the top 10, but upper half, yeah. Although if you’re just gonna say FDR won us WW2, you might as well say Wilson won us WW1, so.

Somebody with your policy orientation might not approve of this, but the vast majority of Americans see victory in World War II as both much more significant historically and much more imperative morally than victory in World War I.

It’s only more significant historically because of their hasn’t been another world War since. World War 2 has become to be seen as, to refer to a term used for the First World War, the “war to end all wars.”

And while World War II was arguably a more significant war to win, let’s not act like the Central Powers winning the 1st World War was even close to being neutral on its effect in the world, instead of decidedly worse.

The Central Powers were reactionary and highly militarist, but at no point did they attempt a war of racial extermination (Generalplan Ost, Drang nach Osten, etc. etc.). They are not comparable.

Armenian Genocide?

I'll admit I was thinking of Austria-Hungary and Germany (and should have specified Germany in WWI vs Germany in WWII), so fair point, but it is still not remotely comparable. Are you seriously going to claim the consequences German victory in World War One would be on par with one in World War Two?

No, but what I am saying is that is FDR’s win in WW2 is enough to make him a top 3 president (I know other accomplishments are listed, but this is the 1st or 2nd most significant one listed) then it’s not inconceivable that Wilson’s win in WW1 could make him a top 20 president (along with other accomplishments).

[TheReckoning]

Well I'm not sure what you're saying at all. Because the consequences of a German victory on continental Europe in World War One is not remotely in the same stratosphere as a German victory on continental Europe in World War Two.

I don’t know what this exactly means. Was the win in WW2 more crucial than in WW1? Yes, of course. But I’m not saying otherwise. What I’m saying is considering the numerous factors involved, if a win in WW2 is enough to make FDR a top 3 president, than a win in WW1 is enough to make Wilson a top 15 president.

Keep in mind some things:

1) The USA was much more crucial to winning the 1st World War than the 2nd. While the Allies lose either war without the USA, in the 1st World War, the Entente would’ve lost very easily. Therefore, it can also be said that Wilson deserves more credit for winning the 1st than FDR does for winning the 2nd.

2) FDR wasn’t even around for the conclusion of WW2, and although was involved in preliminary talks for the future of Europe after the 2nd World War, he certainly didn’t play as big of a role as constructing the post-war world as Wilson did after his World War.

3) While the results in Europe would undoubtedly be worse in an Axis win in WW2 than in a Central Powers win in WW1, In terms of the impact on the United States, a lose in either war has the same result: a global decrease in power for the USA and it’s Allies, as well as it’s general governing ideology being less widespread/influential. There is not a huge difference here.

4) The Central Powers were undoubtedly evil. Not as much as the Axis, but let’s not forget the 1.2 million Armenians slaughtered in the war, or the violation of Belgian neutrality. The ideologies that they believed in were awful, as was their disregard for human life. The fact that you didn’t even think of the Armenian genocide shows both your lack of knowledge on this subject, and the success of people who want to cover up this fact as much as possible.

5) Even after our win in WW2, a less evil, but still very evil, power was emboldened, partially because of FDR’s actions: the USSR. The decades that followed were nothing short of hell for millions of people. No such consequence existed for Wilson.

[TheReckoning]

The decades that followed were nothing short of hell for millions of people. No such consequence existed for Wilson.

Didn't it, though?

I’m assuming you’re talking about WW2. But that wasn’t any of Wilson’s fault, nor was the Nazi threat an existent one at that time.

[TheReckoning]

-snip-

Here are some things to consider:

- With the Russians pulling out of WW1, Germany had about 1 million soldiers they could move towards the Western Front. This was absolutely crippling to the French/British morale, which was only saved because of the Americans joining the war. While the Germans at this time were suffering food shortages due to the British Blockade, the Entente was even more weakened, and it’s really hard to seem hitting a knockout blow to Germany at this time. Meanwhile, it’s almost certain that the Allies would’ve won WW2 without direct US intervention.

- The Nazis had no intention of invading or attacking the United States directly. While they wanted to weaken the United States in terms of its global power, they were content to leave every single American alone, as long as they got Lebensraum. Therefore, FDR didn’t protect Americans from Nazi Germany anymore than Wilson protected us from the German Empire.

- While the Nazi/Japanese atrocities were worse than anything the Central Powers did, the latters actions in WW1 still definitely make the top 10 worst atrocities ever committed. Stopping the Nazis was more important, but stopping the Central Powers was extremely important as well- something that Woodrow Wilson did.

- FDR was clearly in a tough situation, and in hindsight it can be said he made the right decision with supplying the Soviets with supplies. But he clearly showed no interest in checking their power, as evidenced by the fact that he seemed content to let them steamroll Eastern Europe to claim as their own. This actions had dire consequences for hundreds of millions of people. Meanwhile Wilson tried his best to ensure peace after WW1, and largely succeeded, until the Nazis rose- but he had no power over that.

[TheReckoning]

1. I already addressed this. Your point is just....verifiably incorrect. Did you read what I said? The Germans DID launch an offensive with their 1 million soldiers freed up from the eastern front. They attacked BEFORE the Americans arrived and they FAILED. Your statement that freeing up these troops "was absolutely crippling to the French/British morale, which was only saved because of the Americans joining the war." This, this point, is fictitious. The Germans didn't only free up those soldiers from Russia, they attacked with those same soldiers, and they did not break through.

2. Also wrong. While an actual German invasion of the United States is logistically impossible and would be a pathetic failure on every level. Hitler was not "content to leave every single American alone, as long as they got Lebensraum." Hitler was open about his disgust for the United States and American culture, and in his unpublished second book he outlines his plans for a future war with the US, which he considered (similar to the USSR) a front for "International Judaism." The United States was an integral part of Hitler's deranged view of the world. The German Empire had no such ideological opposition to the United States beyond typical great power conflict.

3. This first point is plausible, debatable but plausible. The idea that Woodrow Wilson "stopped the central powers" is not.

4. Well supplying the Soviets should be obvious, unless you want them to fail in stopping the Nazi invasion, which would be very disturbing indeed. Also, again, evidence on FDR being content in letting Stalin overrun eastern Europe. While he might not have been as aggressive against global communism as his successor, he was not at all trusting in Stalin. While he was more amicable then Churchill, he was not at all content to let Stalin have his way with the continent and was cognizant of future tension with the USSR. And in any case, there was nothing he could do about Soviet domination of Eastern Europe. They won it in the war, and what could be done to force them to withdraw besides the insane idea of taking the fight to them?

Wilson did not "try his best" he demonstrably failed at Versailles to achieve his objectives. This is a key part of what happened! It was a HUGE deal that the actual treaty deviated MASSIVELY from the Fourteen Points, and Clemenceau dictated most of the content of the treaty, at the expense of Wilson's liberal goals. Wilson's post-war objectives were not implemented, and he did not do his best to achieve them, being sidelined by illness for much of the conference and not exactly delegating well.

1. I seriously recommend examining just how close the Central Powers were to winning the war on numerous occasions, and how they would’ve won it without US support. There are others who can explain far better than me.

2. You’re right in that Hitler hated the USA and would’ve wished nothing more than to see it collapse, but he also knew that he has no power to do so. He also dismissed the USA as not being a real threat, saying that since it had no “racial purity” (meaning it was multiracial) with “Jews and Negros” in power, it had no fighting strength. Nazi Germany was not a real threat to the United States, as any historian of this time will tell you.

3. My point isn’t that Wilson beat the Central Powers. My point is that FDR didn’t beat the Axis anymore than Wilson beat the Central Powers.

4. FDR was undoubtedly in a tricky spot, with having pretty much no choice to help the Evil Empire that was the USSR. But he also clearly underestimate the Communist threat, which was a huge miscalculation on his part as Soviet atrocities were well known at this point. The emboldening of the USSR wasn’t entirely his fault, but it does make his win in WW2 less significant than it could’ve been.

5. The fact that Wilson got sick and was unable to secure peace as best as possible does not mean he didn’t really try to.

[TheReckoning]

1. I seriously recommend examining just how close the Central Powers were to winning the war on numerous occasions, and how they would’ve won it without US support. There are others who can explain far better than me.

They came close on numerous occasions in 1914 and not once subsequently. The central dynamic of the First World War (and the reason why it was so appallingly bloody) was that the Central Powers were not strong enough to win the war, but were strong enough to prevent the Allied Powers from forcing a defeat barring total collapse - which, of course, is eventually what happened. American involvement in the War brought matters to a conclusion faster than would otherwise have been the case, but the inevitable failure of the Ludendorff Offensive meant that the collapse was already underway by the time American troops began to arrive on the Western Front. You really do not have a clue as to what you are talking about.

They actually came close in 1917 as well.

[TheReckoning]

They actually came close in 1917 as well.

What? When? If you mean the Nivelle Offensive then as disastrous as it was, the idea that it nearly caused the collapse of the French war effort is a myth, and one with extremely dubious political factors behind it, given that the failure of the Nivelle Offensive led to the ascendency of Pétain. At no stage in 1917 were the allied positions on the Western Front seriously threatened.

I recommend you try not to look at sole battles/operations as accurate depictions of how the war at the time was going. The Central Powers were in far better shape to win WW1 than the Axis were in WW2.