The True Legacy Of FDR- The Truth About WW 2

Discussions on all aspects of the United States of America during the Inter-War era and Second World War. Hosted by Carl Schwamberger.
User avatar
Psycho Mike
Member
Posts: 3243
Joined: 15 Sep 2002 13:18
Location: United States

The True Legacy Of FDR- The Truth About WW 2

Post by Psycho Mike » 24 Jun 2004 16:40

We are involved today in a nostalgia for the second world war. Sentiment has overpowered the facts of the war. From the lefts Studs Terkel THE GOOD WAR, to the press like Tom Brokaw dubbing the men then THE GREATEST GENERATION to even the far lefts arguments that "war never solves anything" to "all war is bad" EXCEPT for World War 2 our nation has blinders on when it comes to the war. (Let's face it, pacifists backing the war speaks volumes on our present inability to understand the war), and today to say anything bad about Churchill or FDR is considered sedition. Treason.

During the war FDR went far beyond Bush- he didn't just mistreat prisoners held in camps, he filled camps with tens of thousands of innocent people that had the misfortune of having Japanese or German ancestors. He took their bank accounts, he closed their businesses, he took their homes. He curtailed free speech in ways most still don't understand "Loose lips sink ships". Yet as our freedoms were curtailed our folks were told they were fighting FOR those rights! Bush hasn't taken over the economy the way FDR did. Strikes for example are not banned the way they were in the U.S. during the war. We don't have rationing. Protests are not considered aiding the enemy. Yet the left insists that Bush has in fact gone beyond Hitler. He hasn't even gone beyond FDR. But don't dare tell them that.

During the war movies showed no blood. No faces were shot off. No one was left paralyzed. War was clean. Wounds were just flesh wounds- and FDR demanded that ALL war films and news reports go before a government censor board to determine if they could be shown. The men on the battlefield began to resent the fact that as they slipped on the torn flesh of their friends in combat, the people at home were watching silly John Wayne films and their press was "cleaned up" so that their actual sacrifice was kept from the home front. In an odd way, their troubles were as trivialized and unknown to the public as the vets from Viet Nam. And parades did not help.

The first sign that something was wrong happened in the UK. When the people realized that the German code had been broken BEFORE the war and that incidents like the bombing of Coventry were actually ALLOWED to happen without warning people, having extra ambulances or moving in more troops they voted Churchill out. Then some things happened here that to this day, we have never tried to understand. The movie THE WILD ONE with Marlon Brando and his first film about a paralyzed veteran reflected the true face of war. Why did for example, some soldiers from World War 2 refuse to take white collar jobs and instead form biker gangs like the Hells Angels? Biker groups that allowed cussing and hard drinking and eventually drugs? Why did they hate authority after the war?

Why did other soldiers at wars end, begin travelling around the country, writing poetry, listening to jazz- jazz that was free form, improvised and lacking- authority? The vulgar words that if used in public would cause arrest (at least here in the states) became part of our vocabulary. Those words were brought here by the GI's. Drinking was so widespread that it was made a joke. We doidn't understand those men were over drinking because of the pain they had been through. It was considered funny.

The secret can be found first in the film and book FROM HERE TO ETERNITY. It is interesting to compare the book and movie to our view of the war now, PEARL HARBOR. In Pearl Harbor the recent Hollywood version of the war, all soldiers are heroes. Heck, we even get a plane in the air and shoot down a Japanese plane. This is our new version of history. As time has passed, the victories of our allies have been snatched from those nations as we claim credit for virtually everything. FROM HERE TO ETERNITY was a huge hit- from bikers to beatniks, from the common person to the war vet. Yet its premise is today so shocking that Hollywood could not concieve of its meaning today. In fact, a remake failed to grasp its meaning. In the book and film, two individuals in the military are destroyed by the petty bureaucrats above them. The military system was one of subordination and autocracy that was alien to the soldiers. Little wonder that so many returned with problems with bureaucracy. Even a committed socialist like George Orwell wrote NINETEEN EIGHTY- FOUR after he watched western democracies destroy without flinching the sole purposes for the war, freedom and liberation, as 200 million were turned over to Stalin and lost free speech, religion and the vote even he had to speak out.

In the early 1960's a new reason for the war would be made up. The death camps. Yet during the war the citizens of the west were not informed of them. The soldiers who entered the death camps were genuinely shocked by what they saw. Nothing had prepared them for what they saw. One of Hitler's right hand men tried to save his own neck by turning over the remaining 1 million Jews in return for his neck- so no question our leaders did know what was going on. He was turned down. Hitler remained in power. The Jews remained in the camps. Not even that excuse holds water.

The bureaucracy of FDR outlived the war, grew under LBJ and has continued to now. The FCC, once solely involved in selling airspace, has replaced the World War 2 military censorship boards. Only Ayn Rand, Hayek in his book THE ROAD TO SERFDOM, Orwell who would see the horrors of collectivization and speak against it, the bikers, the beat poets, the jazz musicians tried to warn us. For the most part, we didn't listen. Today increases in money in education continue to go to the ever growing non- teaching bureaucracy- not the teachers. Policemen in Chicago can't ask non-English speaking people in car accidents with no insurance if they are from here- and then call immigration to come get them. We are discussing new organizations to deal with the Islamist movement here in America, but policemen aren't allowed to spy on them. If a cop is accused, falsely of using a racial slur the paperwork and threat to his or her career is shocking.

The legacy of FDR is a socialist bureaucracy. It has brought us to this point in history. Not Bush.

User avatar
Lord Gort
Member
Posts: 2014
Joined: 07 Apr 2002 14:44
Location: United Kingdom: The Land of Hope and Glory

Post by Lord Gort » 24 Jun 2004 19:58

Not got time at the moment, but Mike, you have dug up some real rubbish over time, but this takes the biscuit, it is blatantly pro-bush and anti Roosevelt, and quite obviously a piece of partisan idiocy. :?
When the people realized that the German code had been broken BEFORE the war and that incidents like the bombing of Coventry were actually ALLOWED to happen without warning people, having extra ambulances or moving in more troops they voted Churchill out.

This quote here shows the complete inaccuracy and obvious departure the author has made from the facts! 8O


Get a new source Mike! :|

User avatar
Psycho Mike
Member
Posts: 3243
Joined: 15 Sep 2002 13:18
Location: United States

Post by Psycho Mike » 24 Jun 2004 20:31

http://www.winstonchurchill.org/i4a/pag ... pageid=690
EXCERPT:
It has now become a matter of accepted fact, at least among the British public, that on the night of 14 - 15 November 1940, rather than compromise a decisive source of intelligence, Winston Churchill allowed the city of Coventry to be left to the mercies of the German Air Force.

This story has appeared in many books, numerous articles and letters to the press, but its present currency is due to the efforts of three men: William Stevenson, Anthony Cave Brown and F. W. Winterbottom, all of whom have written books.

In his book A MAN CALLED INTREPID, Stevenson claims that the Germans sent the order to destroy Coventry in the second week during November. Unlike previous "Ultra" messages, which had always given the name of the target in code, this message gave the name "Coventry" in clear type. Thus, Stevenson says, within minutes of the order being given, it was placed in front of the Prime Minister. Faced with the prospect of leaving the people of the city to die or evacuating them, Churchill turned to Sir William Stephenson ("Intrepid") for advice. What Stephenson advised was that "Ultra" was too valuable a source of intelligence to risk. By evacuating the city, the Prime Minister would be exposing the source and endangering its usefulness in the future. "Intrepid" told Churchill to let the city burn and the people to their fate.
I don't recall stating the Bush was a hero. I simply don't believe he is the calculating "new Hitler" the left claims he is. Like Ronald Reagan and the end of the Cold War he is hated by Europe, despised by liberals and hey I'm not too crazy about the government spending going on. But like Reagan, he had events and history thrust upon him, and when he passes his reactions to those events will be hailed. And the press, liberals and Europe will scratch their heads and say, "Wait a second. He wasn't a nut?"

Just as the film GODZILLA reflects the attitudes of Japan (in the first film our nukes caused his rampage, in a recent film the actions of Japan caused it- and the monster is said to made up of all those who died killed by Japan!) so does the films, books and music of the 1950's reflect our souls. The success of ETERNITY to me represents our true soldiers feelings. Or the book and films would have bombed. It does continue to amaze me that so many people are interested in Keroac and the like, but have no idea why.....

FDR had higher unemployment by 1941 than we had in the 1920's! All his socialist work programs- failed. The war put everyone to work. The growth of our middle class occurred because the nations being re-built under the Marshall plan had to use the money we gave them- by buying their materials from us! The trickle down theory actually worked, and millions were able to buy homes.

I believe history- not bisquits - is on my side.

User avatar
WalterS
Member
Posts: 1497
Joined: 22 Feb 2004 20:54
Location: Arlington, TX

Post by WalterS » 24 Jun 2004 23:45

I'd say that Psycho Mike has definitely earned his name with this one. His posts are nothing but a diatribe. There are no facts here, no sources, no rational discussion of WWII. Rather, Psycho has gone off on a pro-Bush tantrum which might be appropriate in the Lounge or in some such forum as I.love.bush.no.matter.what, but it hardly seems appropriate here.

User avatar
Lawrence
Member
Posts: 715
Joined: 02 Apr 2002 02:12

Post by Lawrence » 25 Jun 2004 02:49

Although Mike does seem to be blatantly anti-FDR and pro-Dubya, he does occassionaly raise a decent point.

Mainly, the Orwell point. It is true that (although not nearly as bad as the Axis and Stalin) the Western democracies did stamp on personal freedoms, in speech, art, writings, etc that they so passionatly defended. However, it was a time of total war and when you can assert your authority during wartime, when can you? It raises a moral question.

During the First World War, it was much worse. If you're going with the 'Rooselvelt gave us bureaucracy' line, you might as well blame Woodrow Wilson too. Wilson expanded the size of the Federal government vastly and tough laws supressing free speech were enacted. Eugene Debs, the Socialist candidate in 1912, was arrested for insulting the 'Espionage Act' and stayed in jail until he was pardoned by Harding. The Industrial Workers of the World, aka the Wobblies, didn't get off too easily in WWI, many of their leaders were arrested for striking. Now ok, perhaps the Wobblies don't enlist much sympathy. Hell, they're still pretty extreme and nutty. But it shows that America can slip into the dark realm of censoring free speech, even if it does not aid the enemy. One can argue, how much does free speech cover? When are you a traitor or a patriot? One could argue those who overthrew the Tsar were patiriots, tired of an endless, costly war. One can argue that the July 20th conspirators were patriots. But they conspired against governments they believed were leading their countries to defeat. Perhaps Debs felt Wilson was leading America to ruin; and more importantly, perhaps protesters today feel Bush is leading us to ruin.

Second point: the way the war is percieved. I remember reading an article that stated that people are amazed to learn that we didn't go fight Hitler because of the Death Camps. For us in the West, the Holocaust is the epitome of human cruelty and a perfect justification for a just war. It's funny to see how the war is viewed elsewhere, especially in Asia, where the Holocaust is just a footnote in history. Hitler and the Nazis are percieved as criminals, but no worse or offensive than we might view Pirates. There are even Nazi themed bars in Korea and Japan.

As far as movies go, I think the surge of WWII pride came from 'Saving Private Ryan'. I remember studying the war about a year before it came out, then after its release a boom of WWII references on TV and in school. It struck me as odd that a movie could have that big of influence on everyday life.

Perhaps Mike's post was an anti-Democrat/Roosevelt and apology for Dubya, who in my opinion has helped further big bureaucracy more than any Democrat could ever dream of. But the references to the war glorification both during and well after the war, are interesting. While I think WWII was a just war and needed to be fought, I have to quote Donald Trumbo, whose book 'Johnny Got his Gun' was banned during the war, and say:
There are times when it may be needful for certain private rights to give way to the requirments of a larger public good. I know that's a dangerous thought, and I shouldn't wish to carry it too far, but World War II was not a romantic war.

User avatar
Psycho Mike
Member
Posts: 3243
Joined: 15 Sep 2002 13:18
Location: United States

Post by Psycho Mike » 25 Jun 2004 17:59

Thank you Kingsley.

I do believe that the popular culture of the U.S. from the late 1940's to the early 1960's is a treasure chest of the real feelings of our returning vets.

If the FCC isn't the replacement for the military censorship board- what is it? How did it get this way?

How did we lose freedoms without noticing?

We are once again at war. I do not believe for a second that Japan was going to conquer the United States. We are however, at war on our shores now. We had better learn and question the actions of that war, so we can this time around at least know when our freedoms are eroded.

User avatar
redcoat
Member
Posts: 1361
Joined: 03 Mar 2003 21:54
Location: Stockport, England

Re: The True Legacy Of FDR- The Truth About WW 2

Post by redcoat » 25 Jun 2004 23:00

Psycho Mike wrote:
The first sign that something was wrong happened in the UK. When the people realized that the German code had been broken BEFORE the war and that incidents like the bombing of Coventry were actually ALLOWED to happen without warning people, having extra ambulances or moving in more troops they voted Churchill out. .
Seeing British towns were being bombed every night in this period I wouldn't think they would need any warning :roll:
Historians who have looked into this myth, have found that there was confusion about whether it was London or Coventry which was due to be attacked that night, and that Churchill did order that the civil defences be warned to expect a heavy attack.

User avatar
Lord Gort
Member
Posts: 2014
Joined: 07 Apr 2002 14:44
Location: United Kingdom: The Land of Hope and Glory

Post by Lord Gort » 25 Jun 2004 23:09

Is the author suggesting the British people voted Churchill out inn 1945 because they thought he hadnt helped Coventry when he could?


The Enigma story wasnt declassified till 1976, and with regard to Coventry, until about 1983.


regards,

Globalization41
Member
Posts: 1298
Joined: 13 Mar 2002 02:52
Location: California

Neutrality Vs. Interventionism

Post by Globalization41 » 27 Jun 2004 03:53

The New York Times, Sunday, June 22, 1941:
The outbreak of war between Germany and
Russia appears to have made American
isolationists more isolationist and
interventionists more strongly convinced that
their views are right. ... Typical of the point
of view that the United States should remain
aloof from Europe was the comment of John T.
Flynn, head of the local group of the America
First Committee,
who said: "This war started
with Germany moving to the East, her
objectives being the Ukraine and the Rumanian
oil fields. Then England and France said `No
you can't do that.' The result was the
destruction of the Low Countries and France.
Now Germany is resuming where she left off
when Britain interrupted. If Germany wins,
Russia will go Fascist. If Russia defeats
Germany, Germany will go Communist. There
is no choice for us at all.
The question now is,
are we going to fight to make Europe safe for
communism?" ... Typical of the comment
from the opposite side was the statement of the
Committee to Defend America by Aiding the
Allies,
signed by Lewis W. Douglas, chairman
of the national policy board: "Hitler is
planning on world domination and will commit
any crime to achieve it.
A successful venture
into Russia means unlimited oil, hence a
stronger Germany. The peril to the United
States is increasingly grave,
making
unmistakably clear the necessity of immediate
and decisive action with Great Britain in our
common defense in the war Germany is waging
upon all mankind."
... Senator Burton K.
Wheeler of Montana told The United Press in
Dubuque, Iowa, that "I don't think the
American people will stand for a tie up with
the Communists. I think there is more
likelihood now that we can keep American
soldiers at home. Now we can just let Joe
Stalin and the other dictators fight it out."
...
Herbert Hoover, former president, arriving at
La Guardia Field from the West Coast, said the
new development "greatly releases the pressure
on the British."
Mr. Hoover remarked that he
had returned to New York to continue his work
in this city, and when asked the exact nature of
that work, he replied: "I have two jobs at the
present time. The first is to try to contribute
what I can to keep the country out of the
European war. The second is to do what I can
to secure food for some 50-million starving
people in Europe."
... Norman Thomas,
national chairman of the Socialist party, issued
this statement: "Socialist sympathy will go to
the Russian people, who are the victims of
aggression at Hitler's hands. Hitler cannot
rehabilitate himself by becoming a crusader
against the crimes of Stalin.
But for Stalin we
have no sympathy. In every way his cruelty
and duplicity have equaled Hitler's
own. It
was his agreement with Hitler which unleashed
the military force of which he is now a
prospective victim."

Cairo, Egypt, Special Cable to The New York
Times,
Sunday, June 22, 1941: At midday
Saturday Ethiopian patriot forces under British
officers
took Jimma, former headquarters of
the Italians in Western Ethiopia and their
largest remaining center of resistance in that
area, the British Middle East Command
reported here today. ... The patriot troops and
British West and East Africans, with whom
they are operating, are pursuing the Italians
from the Jimma area northward. ... Additional
troops of the Italian 24th Division surrendered
at Soddu, 90 miles north of Jimma and due
west of Addis Ababa. West of there, the
British Command reported, Imperial forces
stormed an Italian position near Lakemti

(Lechemti) and captured the place, with 130
Italians and 30 colonials as prisoners and four
artillery pieces and 20 machine guns taken. ...
The Italian High Command is reported to have
offered previously to surrender Jimma. ...
Most of the Fascist troops had been retreating
northward
and the British waited a few days,
while Ethiopian patriots worked through the
surrounding area to occupy the town. ...
Gondar in Northwest Ethiopia is now the only
important position left to the Italians and it has
been completely isolated. With a simultaneous
attack from the northwest -- from the direction
of the Sudan border -- the British are expected
to base a drive on Gondar along the southern
road from Addis Ababa. Indian and patriot
troops were reported closing in on Debra
Tabor,
which commands this road about 60
miles southeast of Gondar. The British already
control approaches from the west and north.

Cairo, Egypt, Special Cable to The New York
Times,
Sunday, June 22, 1941: The Libyan
situation was reported quiet. ... A British
spokesman here said the German-Russian war
materially lessen the chances of a Nazi attack
in the Western Desert.
Observations indicated
the Germans needed more men and equipment
to carry out a decisive offensive in this theatre.
More men and materiel are reaching [the
Allies]
here from British Empire sources and
the United States,
and the time factor favors
the British in Africa.

Madrid, By Telephone to The New York
Times,
Sunday, June 22, 1941: The fact that
Germany and Russia are now at war will at
least clear up one anomalous point in the
ideology of Nationalist Spain, it was said.
When the Nationalists won the Civil War with
the aid of Germany, and ever since August,
1939, it has been difficult to explain why
Germany -- still the object of national
admiration
-- made friends with a nation
that aided the Republican side. [This
compiler resided in Madrid from 1978 to
1982. Even then numerous swastikas were
graffitied throughout a generally well-kept
Madrid, especially in the lower class
neighborhoods. (Most Spanish were pro-
Argentinean during the Falklands War
because of the British presence on Gibraltar.)]


Berlin, Associated Press, The New York
Times,
Sunday, June 22, 1941: Fifty
enthusiastic Lithuanians raised the flag of their
country in the garden of the old Lithuanian
Legation here today. ... They had been barred
from the legation since last September, when
Russia absorbed Lithuania.


Forbes Field, Pittsburgh, Associated Press,
The New York Times,
Sunday, June 22, 1941:
Cy Blanton [of the Philadelphia Phillies] pitched
no-hit ball for five innings of the first game [of a
doubleheader
with the Pittsburgh Pirates] but an
error by Merrill [Pinky] May paved the way for
three Pittsburgh runs in the 6th. Rip Sewell gave
seven hits but the Phils went scoreless until the
9th inning [as the Pirates topped the Phils 4-1].
... [Sewell hurled an efficient complete game,
walking one and fanning none. ... The Pirate
outfield made six putouts and their infield
turned three doubleplays. ... Blanton allowed
three hits, fanned two, and issued two passes
in seven innings. Rube Melton pitched the 8th
inning for the Phils, allowing one run as the
Pirates extended their lead to 4-0. ... The
last-place Phils' W-L record fell to 17-43
while sixth-place Pittsburgh increased its
record to 24-28. ... Thirdbaseman Pinky
May
turned six fielding assists for the Phillies.
The limited Pirate offense consisted of Frankie
Gustine's
walk, single, stolen base, and two
runs scored; Arky Vaughan's walk, bunt, and
run scored; Bob Elliot's single, walk, and run
batted in; Elbie Fletcher's single and two RBIs,
Maurice Van Robay's double, Bill Baker's run
scored, and Rip Sewell's bunt. ... Philly
hitters were paced by a double and single
from Danny Litwhiler and two singles by Nick
Etten. ... Each club left four runners on
base ... Time of game was 1:43.]


Starting Lineups (Game One)

Philadelphia Phillies

Joe Marty cf
Danny Litwhiler lf
Bobby Bragan ss
Nick Etten 1b
Johnny Rizzo rf
Pinky May 3b
Bennie Warren c
Hal Marnie 2b
Cy Blanton p

Pittsburgh Pirates
Frankie Gustine 2b
Lee Handley 3b
Arky Vaughan ss
Bob Elliot rf
Elbie Fletcher 1b
Maurice Van Robays lf
Vince DiMaggio cf
Bill Baker c
Rip Sewell p

[Tommy Hughes for the Phils and Max Butcher
the Bucs were the scheduled starting pitchers
for the nightcap.]


Berlin, By Telephone to The New York
Times,
By C. Brooks Peters, Sunday, June 22,
1941:
The High Command communique
contained only two brief paragraphs on the
beginning of the Russian campaign. Since
early this morning, it said, belligerent activities
had been in progress on the Soviet border. A
Russian attempt to fly into East Prussia was
repulsed with heavy losses, the bulletin added.
... Official German military quarters issued no
detailed information about either the points of
concentration
of their attack or the results of
the invasion's initial effort. ... The first
reports of German soldier-correspondents on
the new front, broadcast at regular intervals
over a national hook-up
during the day and
evening, suggested that, as in prior campaigns,
the first blows came from the German Air
Force. ... These attacks, which came at dawn,
appear on the basis of available information to
have been concentrated on Russian air bases --
including barracks, hangers, and gasoline and
munitions depots -- in the former Baltic States
of Lithuania, Estonia, and Latvia. ... One
German front report specifically mentioned the
newly-constructed air base at Ventspils
[Windau] in former Latvia. There the
Germans claimed to have destroyed some 30
Russian planes on the ground
and to have
destroyed or set afire hangers and barracks
with bombs from Junkers-88's. ... [The
Germans charged that]
the Russian command
had concentrated 118 infantry divisions on the
German border [and] almost 2,000 planes on
fields north of the Pripet marshes [in Eastern
Poland].
... The size of the German forces
that began the attack along a line running from
the polar regions to the Black Sea
is a military
secret, but it may be assumed that they are
sizable. ... Historically Russian armies have
shown an aptitude for destroying everything
along their line of retreat.
Should they be able
to destroy their rolling stock, they may
inconvenience German communications and
supply lines. Since the gauge of the railway
systems in Russia is wider
than that of other
railway systems in Europe, the Germans will
be unable to employ Continental rolling stock
on them. ... Great confidence is expressed in
German quarters, none the less, that the
campaign can be brought to a rapid conclusion.
Whether the confidence is justified only the
future can tell.

Manila, Associated Press, The New York
Times,
Sun., June 22, 1941: Fingerprinting
and registration of all aliens in the Philippine
Islands are required under a bill signed
yesterday by President Manual Quezon.
An estimated 100,000 aliens will be affected.

Stockholm, United Press, The New York
Times,
Sunday, June 22, 1941: According to
the Stockholm representative of the official
Russian news agency Tass, [quoting] news
which he said was direct from a Russian
shortwave broadcast, a "bourgeoisie inspired"
revolt against the Red Army in Estonia broke
out and was still in progress at a late hour
today. ... The Tass correspondent furnished
unconfirmed reports that the rebels had
occupied some small armed ships in the Tallinn
Harbor and were firing at Russian troops in the
Estonian capital [and] that Red troops were
"successfully fighting" the rebels. ... ...
Canberra, Australia, Wireless to The New
York Times,
Sunday, June 22, 1941: Prime
Minister Robert Gordon Menzies, commenting
today on Germany's invasion said it was the
most sensational news, representing what might
be described as the high water mark of
Reichsfuehrer Hitler's cynicism.
It was
another proof that a treaty, to Germany, was a
mere piece of paper. ... Navy Minister W.M.
Hughes
said many nations had tried to conquer
Russia, but none had succeeded. The Russians
were animated by a zeal as fanatical as that of
the Germans.
The Communists' attitude
toward the war now would become
unmistakably clear, he declared. ... The press
hails the invasion as the war's most heartening
overt development,
though also as a dark
warning of the fate awaiting nations that hope
to be left alone, whenever Herr Hitler thinks
the moment favorable to subject them to his
will. ... ... Washington, Special to The New
York Times,
By Bertram D. Hudlen, Sunday,
June 22, 1941:
Germany's attack on Russia is
regarded by the State Department as
convincing proof that Hitler plans to dominate
the world
[which] serves to reinforce
contentions long made by President Roosevelt
and Secretary of State Cordell Hull. ... The
department was less definite concerning the
prospects of lease-lend aid to Russia. No
official communication has been received from
Russia, the department said, consequently any
questions regarding lease-lend aid need not be
discussed at this time. ... ... The New York
Times,
Sunday, June 22, 1941: The
Communist Party of the United States issued
Sunday night a statement that termed the
German war on Russia "an unprovoked
criminal attack upon the greatest champion of
peace, freedom, and national independence
."
... The statement, couched in terms of
Communist ideology, called for "full support
and cooperation with the Soviet Union in its
struggle against Hitlerism." ... Thus the
"party line" of association with the Germans,
which had existed since the signing of the
Nazi-Soviet pact shortly before the war started
in September, 1939, was broken. [During the
two years prior to that pact, Stalin had ordered
the execution of practically all top anti-fascist
Eastern European communist refugees living in
the Soviet Union.]
... The manifesto spoke of
the European conflict as the "second imperialist
world war,
" and declared that the Russians had
"liberated the peoples of the Western Ukraine,
White Russia, Bessarabia, and the Baltic
States." It argued, moreover, that the
"reactionaries and imperialists of both sides"
had conspired against the peace and neutrality
of the Soviet Union.
[The statement also
asserted that]
"the American people -- the
workers, toiling farmers, the Negro masses,
the middle classes -- all those who hate fascism
and oppression and cherish peace and liberty
will see in the cause of the U.S.S.R. and its
people the cause of all progressive mankind."

Forbes Field, Pittsburgh, Associated Press,
The New York Times,
Sunday, June 22,
1941:
The Phillies [18-43, last place] ended
a seven-game losing streak by pounding five
Pirate pitchers for 17 hits to win the second
game
of a doubleheader, 7-4, after dropping
the first, 4-1, today. ... Max Butcher [1.1
innings, four hits, one walk]
was the loser in
the parade of hurlers in the nightcap. The
Phils greeted him with two runs in the 1st
inning and never were headed. [The Phils
also scored in the 2nd and 3rd for a 4-0
advantage. They added two in the 7th and
one in the 9th.]
Nick Etten [double, three
singles, and a stolen base]
and Danny
Litwhiler
[double, triple, and two singles]
each had four hits for the Phils. [Additionally,
Stan Benjamin doubled and tripled for
Philadelphia. ... Following Butcher's quick
hook, Nick Strincevich (0.2 innings, three
hits), Ken Heintzelman (three innings, two
hits, one walk, one strikeout), Johnny
Lanning
(two innings, five hits, one strikeout),
and Lefty Wilkie (two innings, three hits)
divided up the mound duties for the Bucs.]
...
The Pirates [24-29, 6th place] scored in
clusters of two in the 5th and 8th innings,
driving Tom Hughes [seven innings, eight
hits, two walks, one strikeout]
to the showers
with the second outburst. [Frank Hoerst (0.1
innings, one strikeout) relieved Hughes and
Si Johnson (1.2 innings, one hit, one walk,
one strikeout) closed. ... Lee Handley
singled twice and Vince DiMaggio doubled
to lead the Pittsburgh attack. ... Each team
stranded seven runners. ... Centerfielder
Vince DiMaggio hauled down the only flyball
putout by Buc outfielders. ... Hal Marnie,
Bobby Bragan,
and Nick Etten turned two
4-6-3 twin killings for the Phillies. The
Pirates totaled 22 fielding assists, including
three by catcher Al Lopez, six by Arky
Vaughan
at short, four by Frankie Gustine at
second, and five comebackers. ... The
attendance was 10,000. ... Time of game
two was 2:46. ... The umpires for the twin bill
were Babe Pinelli (homeplate in the opener
and thirdbase in the nightcap), Lee Ballanfant
(at first in game one and behind the plate in
game two), and Al Barlick.]


Starting Lineups (Game Two)

Philadelphia Phillies

Stan Benjamin rf
Bobby Bragan ss
Danny Litwhiler lf
Nick Etten 1b
Joe Marty cf
Micky Livingston c
Pinky May 3b
Hal Marnie 2b
Tommy Hughes p

PittsburghPirates
Frankie Gustine 2b
Lee Handley 3b
Arky Vaughan ss
Bob Elliot rf
Elbie Fletcher 1b
Maurice Van Robays lf
Vince DiMaggio cf
Al Lopez c
Max Butcher p

Portsmouth, New Hampshire, Special to The
New York Times,
By Russell B. Porter,
Sunday, June 22, 1941: Colonel Frank Knox,
Secretary of the Navy, delivered a eulogy, and
all the military rites of a naval burial at sea for
two officers and 31 men were performed
aboard another submarine near the place where
the training submarine O-9 went down Friday
morning, 24 miles east of Portsmouth.

[Stay tuned for late breaking war bulletins.
... Globalization41.]

User avatar
col. klink
Member
Posts: 735
Joined: 28 Aug 2002 05:46
Location: chicago,il. usa

True legacy of FDR

Post by col. klink » 27 Jun 2004 05:10

Psycho chooses to compare the 1941 unemployment rate with the rate of the 20s. I'd prefer to extend that time period to the entire 12 year period of Republican control of the White House under Harding, Coolidge and Hoover. This would make the period go from 1921 to 1933.

http://ingrimayne.saintjoe.edu/econ/Eco ... ssion.html

If you go to this site, in about the middle of the article are some charts. The one I would like to note is the one on the unemployment rate. If you read the article you'll see that the start of the Great Depression is widely agreed to be in 1929. The unemployment rate peaks in early 1933, FDR was inaugurated to his first term in March, 1933. I guess Mike deliberately wanted to confine his point to the 1920s which was a boom time. I think that is unfair of him because it omits the situation that FDR encuntered when he began his first term. The counter to Psycho's argument is to poinjt out that the employment rate in 1941 was lower than the rate, which was almost 25%, at the begining of 1933 and had been growing from 1929 onward. Psycho Mike, if you take credit for the boom, you should take blame for the bust.

Globalization41
Member
Posts: 1298
Joined: 13 Mar 2002 02:52
Location: California

Depression Fading Fast

Post by Globalization41 » 27 Jun 2004 06:34

The New York Times, Thursday, May 1, 1941:
A 12.6% drop in national unemployment took
887,000 persons from the jobless lists in March
and reduced the national total to 6.14 million,
the National Industrial Conference board
reported today. The total was three million
below the board's figure for March, 1940. ...
Total employment climbed to 49.37 million,
the highest point since September, 1929, when
49.7-million persons had jobs. With 934,000
more persons at work [the one-month increase
for March]
employment in the service industry
rose 237,000, manufacturing 161,000, and
construction 100,000, while the seasonal
upswing in agriculture gave employment to
357,000 more. The board estimated the
number of workers in the WPA, CCC, and
other Federal emergency agencies at 2.47
million, and observed that if these were
deducted from the unemployment total there
would remain only 3.67-million jobless out of
a total labor force of about 55.5 million [6.6%
of labor force unemployed or 11.1% when
adding in Federal relief workers].


Berne, Switzerland, By Telephone to The
New York Times,
By Daniel T. Brigham,
Thursday, May 1, 1941: Intensive Russian
defensive preparations continued behind the
Lwow-Odessa line, and in the Baltic sector
strong aerial patrols were reported today
added to the reinforced and watchful frontier
defenses,
particularly in the sub-Carpathian
frontier district with Hungary and along the
Russo-German demarcation line north of
Lwow. ... Other reported significant actions
were the evacuation of civilian population in
many sectors of the "Polish front"
and the
establishment of a forbidden zone along
the southern shores of the Gulf of Finland in
Estonia. This latter measure is believed to
be directly connected with the influx of large
numbers of anti-aircraft batteries and tractor-
drawn coastal batteries. ... Moscow's main
attention, however, still seems to be directed
in the defensive field toward ascertaining the
attitude of a vacillating Turkey.
The Russian
Ambassador in Ankara is understood to have
delivered a note requesting a definite statement
of Turkey's intentions on keeping the Straits
open in the event of an attack. This demarche,
it is understood, will not be answered before
President Ismet Inonu's return from Istanbul,
where he is at present after having made a
tour of inspection in Smyrna. ... Meanwhile
indications continue to pile up that Turkey,
since the collapse of the Anglo-Greek defenses
and the British withdrawal from the Balkans, is
gradually yielding to increased German
pressure and may eventually allow the free
passage of German troops and mechanized
materiel through to attack Syria and Trans-
Jordan for a drive on Suez from the east. ...
German occupation of the Islands of Lemnos
and Samothrace
is believed here to have
contributed much to the apparent modification
of the Turkish attitude toward her British
"Ally." ... This modification of attitude
toward the British interests the Russians only
in so far as it may presage a swing into the
German camp. Unconfirmed reports of the
passage of German materiel through the
Dardanelles to the Aegean islands from the
Black Sea causes considerable apprehension
in Russian military circles,
particularly since
these shipments could have been made only
with the permission or connivance of the
Turkish control authorities.

The New York Times, Thursday, May 1,
1941:
To prevent evasion of the law requiring
dismissal of WPA workers after 18 months of
continuous employment, Major Irving V.A.
Huie,
local Works Projects Administrator,
directed today that relief workers leaving the
rolls for private jobs be certified as needy
before winning reinstatement on WPA. ...
Major Huie explained that some WPA
employees, facing dismissal under the 18-
month rule,
had sought to circumvent the rule
by obtaining short-term jobs in private industry
and then returning to the WPA rolls for
another 18 months of relief employment.
With a view to ending this practice, the
administrator decreed that persons coming
back from private work undergo an
examination to establish their financial need.
... In a report covering WPA operations in the
Bronx in the first quarter of this year, Major
Huie disclosed that 19 construction projects
had been completed and 54 others were under
way when the period ended. Schools, hospitals,
parks, courts, and roads benefitted from the
WPA activity in the borough. [The article also
reported that the WPA rolls had decreased by
almost 9% in the past month.]
In redistributing
project employees on the reduced basis,
preference would be given to defense jobs.

The International Situation, The New York
Times,
May 1, 1941: The German propaganda
Minister, Dr. Joseph Goebbels, in an interview
with John Cudahy, former U.S. Ambassador to
Belgium, said in Berlin that there would be no
invasion of America,
because the German
General Staff had considered the problem and
had found it impracticable. [Nice sarcasm.]

[Stay tuned for late breaking war bulletins.
... Globalization41.]

User avatar
Psycho Mike
Member
Posts: 3243
Joined: 15 Sep 2002 13:18
Location: United States

Post by Psycho Mike » 27 Jun 2004 07:44

I said that FDR's economic policies failed. I am not alone in saying this. His economic policies were also tried by the Soviet Union- and one other power you can read about in the last section below.
http://www.orthodoxytoday.org/cgi-bin/a ... &locale=us
FDR's Folly" stands up well to an objective reader. Jim Powell has heavily researched this work, and provides a litany of sources ranging from forensic accountants and reputable economic sources. Moreover, he bases his conclusions on accepted economic principles that he applies to the historical facts that can be independently verified.
This book demonstrates that the policies promulgated by Roosevelt and his advisors exacerbated an economic disaster. It is a fact that economic systems experience growth and recession in the same manner that natural systems experience periods of abundance and scarcity. How we "weather these conditions" is often impacted more by our remedial approaches to address them rather then the events themselves. Powell proves that the New Dealers "...overestimated the importance of their knowledge, as opposed to the knowledge of millions of ordinary people spending their own money and running their businesses." In fact, " The New Dealers really came to believe that their knowledge, combined with political power, could cure the problems of the world. They thought that by issuing executive orders, passing laws, raising taxes, and redistributing money, they could make society better." It turns out that most of these policies did more to reduce the standard living, increase unemployment, and actually prolong the depression. A clear case of where less would have been more.

In chapter after chapter, Jim Powell presents conclusions around these themes and then provides clear and plain evidence for his conclusions. Of greater importance, this book destroys the myth of Roosevelt as a great savior during the depression. Moreover, it appears that every president since Roosevelt, whether Democrat or Republican, continues to utilize governmental intervention to solve economic policies despite the proven failures of Roosevelt's administration. In making these points, Powell uses a writing style that is concise yet detailed, and he presents a potentially boring subject in an interesting and thought provoking manner.
AND:
Jim Powell's book is one of those few books that have changed my view of the world. Yes, I'm a Republican and just assumed that a free marketer would have dealt with the Great Depression better than FDR did. But my god, how FDR mucked things up!

In clear language and a minimum of bogged-down tangents, Powell catalogs the major economic policies of both Herbert Hoover and FDR, and shows how both presidents (as well as many individual states) doggedly supported counterproductive or self-contradictory policies that prolonged the depression.

In reading of historical blunders such as this, I always try to remind myself that someone had to be the first to learn, through hard experience, what not to do in such-&-such a situation. And indeed, it seems that even Republicans & many prominent businesspeople had accepted the glowing promises of the fascists, and were ready to embrace not only government wage & price controls, but production quotas! At one point Powell includes a jaw-dropping quote by the head of the US Chamber of Commerce declaring that laissez-faire "must be replaced by a philosophy of planned national economy"! Now I know where Ayn Rand came up with her spineless businessmen characters for Atlas Shrugged.

And yet - reading about the major policies leading up to and prolonging the depression still make me exclaim, "What WERE they thinking???": The Fed keeping interest rates artificially low during the Roaring Twenties, which, suprise! helped magnify the stock market bubble. Herbert Hoover signing the Smoot Hawley tariffs, which, suprise! resulted in all our trading partners retaliating against us, shutting off essential markets to whole industries right when they were scrambling to find somebody to sell their wares to. Farm states prohibiting banks from competing by opening branch offices, so, surprise! when farmers got in trouble, these non-diversified (but oh, so protected) rural banks shriveled up & blew away in the wind. FDR enacting the fascist NRA and trying to micromanage businesses' wages, prices, business practices, and then taking all their profits, and surprise! finding that businesses are suddenly gunshy about expanding & hiring more people.
None of those reviewers who thought the book misses the truth about the depression addressed any of Powell's actual arguments. Did the unit banking laws help the American farmer or hurt him? Was the initial stock market crash a government failure, as Powell asserts, or was the Fed right in holding interest rates low in the late '20s? Was Hoover wrong to sign Smoot-Hawley and FDR for keeping it, or is an international trade war a good idea at a time when businesses are finding it impossible to sell things to Americans? Are high taxes on business & the wealthy really a good idea in a depression, or isn't it businesses & the wealthy people who own them precisely the people who tend to hire people - you know, all those proud, able-bodied souls who were out of work?
AND:

http://capmag.com/article.asp?id=3159
They say "truth will out" but sometimes it takes a long time. For more than half a century, it has been a "well-known fact" that President Franklin D. Roosevelt got us out of the Great Depression of the 1930s. That view was never pervasive among economists, and even J.M. Keynes -- a liberal icon -- criticized some of FDR's policies as hindering recovery from the depression.

Only now has a book been written in language that non-economists can understand which argues persuasively that the policies of the Roosevelt administration actually prolonged the depression and made it worse.
That book is "FDR's Folly" by Jim Powell. It is very readable, factual and insightful -- and is endorsed by two Nobel Prizewinning economists.

If the word "folly" seems a little dismissive, read the book first. Someone described FDR's trust-busting Assistant Attorney General Thurman Arnold as being like one of the Marx brothers who went into government by mistake. That description would apply to many of the others around FDR, including his much-vaunted "brain-trust" of presumptuous and self-righteous people.

It is painfully obvious that President Roosevelt himself had no serious understanding of economics, any more than his Republican predecessor, Herbert Hoover, had. The difference was that Roosevelt had boundless self-confidence and essentially pushed some of the misconceptions of President Hoover to their logical extreme. The grand myth for decades was that Hoover was unwilling to use the powers of government to come to the aid of the people during the Great Depression but that Roosevelt was more caring and did. In reality, both presidents represented a major break with the past by casting the federal government in the role of rescuer of the economy in its distress.

Scholarly studies of the history of these two administrations have in recent years come to see FDR's New Deal as Herbert Hoover's policies writ large and in bolder strokes.

Those who judge by intentions may say that this was a good thing. But those who judge by results point out that none of the previous depressions -- during which the federal government essentially did nothing -- lasted anywhere near as long as the depression in which the federal government decided that it had to "do something."

In "FDR's Folly," author Jim Powell spells out just what the Roosevelt administration did and what consequences followed. It tried to raise farm prices by destroying vast amounts of produce -- at a time when hunger was a serious problem in the United States. It imposed minimum wage rates that priced unskilled labor out of jobs, at a time of massive unemployment.

Behind both policies was the belief that what was needed was more purchasing power and that this could be achieved by government policies to raise the prices received by farmers and workers. But prices do not automatically translate into greater purchasing power, unless people buy as much at higher prices as they would at lower prices -- which they seldom do.

Then there were the monetary authorities contracting the money supply in the midst of the biggest depression in history -- when the economy was showing some signs of revival, until their monetary contraction touched off another big downturn.

With policy after policy and program after program, "FDR's Folly" traces the high hopes and disastrous consequences. It would be funny, like the Keystone cops running into one another and falling down, except that millions of people were in economic desperation while this farce was being played out in Washington.

Perhaps worse than any specific policy under FDR was the atmosphere of uncertainty generated by incessant new experiments. Billions of dollars of investment were needed to create millions of jobs for the unemployed. But investors were reluctant to risk their money while the rules of the game were constantly being changed in Washington, amid strident anti-business rhetoric.
Some of the people who most admired and almost worshipped FDR -- poor people and blacks, for example -- were hurt the most by amateurish tinkering with the economy by Roosevelt's New Deal administration. This book is an education in itself, both in history and in economics. It is also a warning of what can happen when leaders are chosen for their charm, charisma and rhetoric.
BUT WAIT----- SOMEONE ELSE TRIED LIBERAL AND LEFT WING ECONOMICS TOO:
Walter Eucken was a professor of economics at the University of Freiburg, Germany and an architect of the economic reforms that led to the Economic Miracle. In this article Eucken wanted to explain the problems and weaknesses of centrally administered economies such as that of National Socialist (Nazi) Germany and the Soviet Union.

The Nazi economic system developed unintentionally. The initial objective in 1932-33 of its economic policy was just to reduce the high unemployment associated with the Great Depression. This involved public works, expansion of credit, easy monetary policy and manipulation of exchange rates. Generally Centrally Administered Economies (CAE's) have little trouble eliminating unemployment because they can create large public works projects and people are put to work regardless of whether or not their productivity exceeds their wage cost. Nazi Germany was successful in solving the unemployment problem, but after a few years the expansion of the money supply was threatening to create inflation.

The Nazi Government reacted to the threat of inflation by declaring a general price freeze in 1936. From that action the Nazi Government was driven to expand the role of the government in directing the economy and reducing the role played by market forces. Although private property was not nationalized, its use was more and more determined by the government rather than the owners.
Eucken uses the case of the leather industry. An individual leather factory produces at the direction of the Leather Control Office. This Control Office arranged for the factory to get the hides and other supplies it needed to produce leather. The output of leather was disposed of according to the dictates of the Leather Control Office. The Control Offices set their directives through a process involving four stages:

1. The collection of statistical information by a Statistical Section. The Statistical Section tried to assemble all the important data on past production, equipment, storage facilities and raw material requirements.
2. The planning of production taking into account the requirements of leather by other industries in their plans; e.g. the needs of the Shoe Control Office for supplies of leather. The available supply of hides limited the production of leather. There had to be a balancing of supply and demand. The result of the planning of all the control offices was a Balance Sheet. There was some effort at creating some system for solving the planning, such as production being limited by the narrowest bottleneck, but in practice the planning ended up being simply scaling up past production and planning figures.
3. The issuing of production orders to the individual factories.
4. Checking up on compliance with the planning orders.
In practice the authorities of the control offices often intervened and there was continual negotiation and political battles as the users of products tried to use political influence to improve their allocations. The prices of 1936 made little economic sense, particularly after Germany was at war. So there economic calculations using the official prices were meaningless. In particular, the profitability of a product was of no significance in determining whether it should be produced or not. Losses did not result in a factory ceasing production; the control offices made sure that it got the raw materials and that the workers got rations of necessities.

At the beginning of the war the Government established a priorities list for allocating scarse resources. Activities associated with the war got top priority and consumer goods production was near the bottom of the list. If two users wanted gasoline any available stocks went to the user with the highest priority. This seems reasonable but, in fact, it led to major problems. Suppose one use of gasoline is for trucks to haul raw materials to factories. If the Government always gives the available gasoline to the Army then the truckers cannot deliver supplies to the factories and they shut down and eventually other factories dependent upon them also shut down. At first the Government tried to handle the problem by revising the priorities list and moving up uses such as gasoline for trucks. But whatever uses got put at the bottom eventually created bottlenecks. In the middle of the war the Government abolished the priority list. It was an unworkable system.

The problem with making production decisions without reference to relevant prices is that the control offices may dictate the production of goods which are of less value to the economy than the opportunity costs of the resources that go into their production.

Because of the mistakes and failures of Centrally Administered Economies there are often black markets operating. Although the authorities typically persecute people for dealing in these markets the reality is that such markets are essential for preventing a collapse of the Centrally Administered Economy.

Production decisions may be made on political criteria that are economically foolish, such as locating a factory in a region to benefit the supporters of some political figure. Even aside from such corruption of the decision process the centrally administered economy suffers from major weaknesses. The centrally administered economy can mobilize resourts quickly for big investment projects but there is no guarantee that there will be a balance of investments. For example, there may be big programs to build railroads but not enough trains to make use of those railroads.

Although Centrally Administered Economies may appear to be efficient and effective initially their errors and inefficiencies accumulate and eventually result in stagnation if not collapse. Often the apparent successes of such economies are just illusions. Outsiders who do not know how such economies really work are often fooled by these illusions.

Source: San José State University - Department of Economics
And that dear friends, is why I say national socialism had the same economy as international!

Globalization41
Member
Posts: 1298
Joined: 13 Mar 2002 02:52
Location: California

Social Utopia, The New Deal, and Globalization

Post by Globalization41 » 27 Jun 2004 20:49

The New Dealers War: F.D.R. and the
War within World War II, by Thomas
Fleming (Book Review by Richard M.
Ebeling)


Excerpts of Review:

Up until the attack on Pearl Harbor, in one
political poll after another between 75 and 80
percent of the American people had
expressed their desire to remain out of the
wars in Europe and Asia.

But in spite of the wishes of the American
people and the public rhetoric that FDR used
to win reelection, he and his administration
were searching for a successful “back door
to war” to bring the United States into the
global conflict.

But despite the mythology found in most
history textbooks, the New Deal did not end
the depression; it lingered on until 1940 with
unemployment remaining above 10 percent.

In foreign policy FDR was determined to
make the world over in his New Deal image
through an alliance with the Soviet Union and
the advocacy of increased government
intervention and command over social and
economic affairs as part of a postwar vision.

And to win the war, Roosevelt had to tone
down and reverse the strong anti-business
rhetoric and attitudes of the 1930s.

FDR’s dream of a world set right by America
has also remained a lasting legacy of the
New Deal, with U.S. political, military, and
economic intervention around the world for
more than half a century.

[In my opinion Bolsheviks, New Dealers, and
neo-conseratives equate to revolutionaries
advocating globalization. They're good at
theory, but poor on practical. ... Stalin took
over from the original Bolsheviks and
switched the Soviet government to fascism.
... Since the New Dealers were apparently
unaware of the laws of math, they had to
delegate much of the day-to-day drudgery
of organization and production to
conservatives and ex-isolationists. ... The
term "neo-conservative" (new-old) is an
oxymoron. The prefix "neo" is code for
revolutionary
.]

[Globalization41]

User avatar
Klaus Yurk
Financial supporter
Posts: 1372
Joined: 15 May 2004 03:15
Location: Lincoln, Ne.

Post by Klaus Yurk » 28 Jun 2004 01:59

Sorry, Mike. I'm an FDR fan. And Bush turns my stomach. But that is just my opinion, and as citizen of a free country, I have the right to that opnion.

I do agree on bureaucracy. but Bush has probably created more than anyone. "From Here To Eternity" was an example of people getting crushed by the system they were caught in. Can't argue there.

I inherently trust big business even far less than I trust big government.

And please don't lay the PC problems of the Chicago police at FDR's doorstep.

User avatar
Lord Gort
Member
Posts: 2014
Joined: 07 Apr 2002 14:44
Location: United Kingdom: The Land of Hope and Glory

Post by Lord Gort » 28 Jun 2004 12:16

Spending your way out of recession as Keynes suggested was implemented in Germany almost by accident. Hitler was going to re-arm and was determiend to give the workers waht they wanted (work and cheap food), that these lead to the multiplier effect ect did not even cross his mind.

Spending your way out of recession, i.e increasing aggregate demand by using fiscal policy to initiate capital projects remained and in some ways still remains the cornerstone of most ecnomies suffering economic stagnation.






The point still stands that the author of Mikes article suggests that the British people voted Churchill out in 1945 because they thought he hadnt helped Coventry when he could.

Which is patently untrue as the Enigma story wasnt declassified till 1976, and with regard to Coventry, until about 1983.


regards,

Return to “USA 1919-1945”