If FDR Had Been Libertarian?

[Foamposite]

Originally Posted by bpollen

My understanding of Libertarians is that they don't believe much in government, period. They take a "you're on your own" approach. Natural selection of a sort. Ayn Rand.

I think that if a Libertarian intervened in those "natural events," he would've bailed out the banks & the very wealthy, explaining that they are contributors and builders of the economy, so if they are on firm footing, they'll have jobs for the non-contributors (the workers). Food assistance and such wouldn't be something a libertarian would do, I think. They'd tell them to look for churches and others to help them out of charity. Government isn't in the business of charity.

A Libertarian govt would be like a skeleton crew, to take care of the machinations of the bare minimum needed to keep the country going. The military for defense, workers to handle paychecks for federal employees, IRS workers to collect taxes, etc. No altruistic things, like food assistance for the poor or FEMA, etc.

Libertarians do not believe in bailing out corporations.

[Milo Wolf]

Originally Posted by Lillie767

What if Eleanor had been elected instead of Franklin?

What if FDR didn't run in 1940?. Would the outcome of WWII be different and would Russia have overtaken eastern and central Europe?

Could Churchill have saved Poland from the Russians if he had been supported by a US President?

What if the newspapers hadn't been silent about FDR and Lucy Mercer?

Churchill? Save Poland?

I'll repeat what I wrote a while back in another thread. In October 1944, Churchill and Stalin met in Moscow. This was a bilateral meeting. FDR was not there. The American ambassador was supposed to represent American interests at the conference, but neither Stalin nor Churchill were interested in making it a threesome and so he was excluded. There Churchill presented Stalin with a proposal on dividing Eastern Europe into spheres of influence. He slid a sheet of paper over to Stalin, upon which were written the names of various countries and the degree of influence each power would have in certain countries. For example, Romania was 90%-10% in favor of the USSR, whereas Greece was 90%-10% in favor of the UK. They agreed on a 50-50 split in Yugoslavia. Poland was briefly mentioned but Churchill did not press Stalin on the issue. At this particular time, the Red Army already occupied half of Poland. Meanwhile, the Western Allies had yet to liberate all of France and Holland, and were still fighting to seize the first German city (Aachen) they would take. Churchill understood perfectly well that the Soviets would roll up all of Poland and that there was nothing at all either the UK or the U.S. could practically do about it.

And that's what happened. The next meeting of the Big Three was Yalta in February 1945. The Western Allies had pushed German forces almost entirely out of France, had retaken Belgium and Luxembourg and southern Holland, but had still barely penetrated Germany proper. Meanwhile, the Soviets had taken all of Poland save the Corridor, had taken almost all of East Prussia, and were pushing into Silesia and rolling across the West Prussian plains and were within 50 miles of Berlin - while the Western Allies were still 300 miles from Berlin. by what stretch of the imagination was Poland not Stalin's at that point? FDR didn't like it. Churchill didn't like it. But they could read the writing on the wall. After Yalta (February 1945), Churchill went before Parliament and declared that he trusted Stalin to keep his word about allowing free elections in Poland. He was probably just hoping for the best (because we know from private communications between Churchill and FDR that both were alarmed at developments in Poland), knowing there was nothing else that could be done, as well as putting the best spin he could on things.

So what, precisely, is this idea that Churchill wanted to 'save Poland' and could have but for FDR? More to the point, what practical power was there to do so?

Furthermore, the imposition of a communist government on Poland (which was recognized by Truman promptly in July 1945, by the way) wasn't the only mistreatment of Poland. Stalin wanted to move Poland west. The USSR would gain a large chunk of Poland in the east, and in compensation Poland would be given a large chunk of Germany in the west. Who proposed this shifting or borders? Not Stalin. And not Roosevelt. It was Churchill. At Tehran in 1943, this agreement was informal. It was officially ratified at Potsdam, when Roosevelt was in the grave and Truman was making the decisions for the United States. And what did Churchill say to Stanisław Mikołajczyk, the Prime Minister of the Polish government-in-exile, when it was presented to him and he objected? Churchill said, "You are not a government, you are an unreasonable people that wants to shipwreck Europe and scuttle agreements among Allies." Churchill prioritized balanced spheres of influence between the Soviets and the West over Polish interests. Why? Because that was in the British interest. World War II was primarily about national interests, not the lovely good-versus-evil fairy tale that people less interested in history and more interested in being entertained tell themselves.

I mentioned this before, and I will again. There is this pervasive American chauvinism that assumes that Churchill was some sort of powerless hanger-on of Roosevelt, unable to do anything but follow FDR's lead. (Note: I am an American.) It assumes a sort of conflict with the United States versus Germany and Japan, with a few Allied helpers who were little more than afterthoughts. This blase minimization of Churchill is often incongruously done in the context of lionizing him, which really makes no sense. And it is not accurate. Yes, it is true that the United States brought more material to the war than anyone else. Yes, it is true that American forces vastly outnumbered British forces. Churchill understood that he was a junior partner. That said, the UK was a very important ally that brought critical forces, technology, and expertise to the endeavor. One of the outstanding successes of the war on the Allied side was the way that FDR and Churchill worked so well together as partners. After Pearl Harbor, Churchill promptly sailed to the States and installed himself at the White House for nearly a month. There he gave his dietary requirements to the White House staff (including liquor morning, noon and night - astonishing everyone with both his intake and his normal functioning despite it) and directed the British war effort. One afternoon FDR wheeled into Churchill's quarters, and Winston was standing there fresh out of his bath, stark naked and dripping. Roosevelt apologized and turned to leave, whereupon Churchill declared "The Prime Minister has nothing to hide from the President!". And then they got down then and there to whatever business FDR had brought. The close, collegial, and genuine partnership is an underrated element behind the success of both nations during the war.

[Ruth4Truth]

Originally Posted by Motion

How would Franklin Roosevelt had dealt with the Great Depression had he been an Libertarian?

He wouldn't have chosen to be a Libertarian.