FDR Invented The ‘Liar-In-Chief’ And Tore Down the Democrat Party And The Country

PBS and documentary maker Ken Burns have done it again with a wonderful look at the political lives of Teddy and Franklin Roosevelt. But if the series did anything it revealed to a discerning viewer how Franklin rebuilt the presidency on a pillar of hate and lies and remade the Democrat Party into a party driven by purposeful misdirection and deceit.

Certainly the series approaches these two consequential presidents as good for the country. Neither were as salubrious for the country as popular opinion holds and both did a lot of damage. To Burns’ credit he does allow conservative commentator George Will to slip in a few digs at how both Teddy and Franklin tore down the presidency and turned our country from a constitutional republic built on a pretty straightforward explication of the political raison d’être of any particular party, candidate or era and into a nation run by sneaky politicians who lie straight-faced to the people and don’t care about the Constitution at all.

Teddy Roosevelt did his bit to end our Constitutional republic, granted, and was followed by Woodrow Wilson who pounded a few more nails into that coffin. But it was Franklin Delano Roosevelt who really destroyed the country.

The truth is, Franklin was an utterly failed president in everything but his leadership in WWII. It has to be acknowledged that his stewardship of the war was great and maybe a lesser president would have left the US more vulnerable. But there is no doubt that he materially hurt this country in every other arena.

His domestic policy was a disaster, his economic policies utterly failed, and his disregard of the rule of law and the US Constitution was a disgusting display of arrogance and hubris. By forcing the world into war, Hitler ended the Great depression, not Franklin Roosevelt.

Franklin Roosevelt re-built this country into a country of haters, liars, cheats, and welfare slobs, destroying a country of rugged individualists who only wanted the freedom to get ahead by the labor of their own two hands.

Our latter Roosevelt lied incessantly to the voters, too. Sadly, they loved him for it setting the precedent for a Democrat Party that doesn’t care how crooked, how mean, and how filled with lies their party is. As long as they win, that is all that matters. It’s no wonder the Republican Party has been worthless since Franklin Roosevelt. They’ve never understood that they are facing liars and have never been able to make voters realize it.

Roosevelt lied about the business sector, lied about Social Security, lied about the war, lied about his health, in fact there was little that he didn’t lie about except for his desire to remake the federal government into a massive charity governed at the point of a gun.

The Hyde Park Roosevelt came to office with hate on his perpetually smiling lips. He riled the American voter to hate their place of employment, encouraged them to despise banks and financiers, and created an air of entitlement to others’ money by laying the foundation for the modern welfare state.

One quote in the series is telling. Roosevelt, an unnamed worker is quoted as saying, “is the only man who knows that my boss is a son of a bitch.”

This is the hate Roosevelt carefully and gleefully engendered in the people of the United States of America.

Previous to Franklin most presidents, most politicians, and the political culture was pretty straightforward about what their goals, policies, and ideals were. Hate them or love them, you generally knew where politicians stood in most ways. Sure there were lies in politics, but they were essentially small lies.

Roosevelt, though, was an inveterate liar and he re-created the presidency into a purveyor of “the great lie.” Just like the communists, Roosevelt believed that he should tell the people what they wanted to hear knowing full well that he was telling them lies and that he intended to do something different than what he said.

Many of the hateful things he said about the business sector were outright lies. In fact, he knew them to be outright lies because he came from that class of people.

He lied for his entire presidency about not getting into WWII, as well. He intended to jump into the war at his earliest possible convenience. For years, Roosevelt held secret meetings with British Prime Minister Winston Churchill and planned a series of maneuvers to get the US into the war.

For instance, over the years many have said that Franklin knew that the Japanese were about to attack Pearl Harbor and that this was his best “in” into the war. But whether he knew about it or not is really immaterial. Roosevelt created Pearl Harbor with a concerted policy of starving Japan of the raw materials it wanted for its expansionist efforts in the Pacific.

Whether he specifically knew that the Japanese were going to hit Pearl or not, Roosevelt purposefully created the attack with policies geared toward pushing Japan to the breaking point. Far from desiring to stay out of a war with Japan as he said daily through his lying, smiling teeth, Roosevelt essentially caused the sneak attack at Pearl Harbor. What should really “live in infamy” is the fact that Roosevelt lied us into that war.

But he also lied about everything else in his life.

He lied repeatedly about his health, for one. Somehow he was able to cowl the press and create the lie-fueled, lapdog media with which we are so familiar. He invented a press corps that would allow itself to be led by the nose by any Democrat president when he got them to refuse to report on just how ill he always was.

Then, when he was dying of heart disease as WWII was coming to a close, he lied barefaced to the country telling us in his own voice that he was perfectly healthy. He died only a short time after one such speech to the nation.

He also lied about Social security calling the redistributionist program an “insurance policy” for the elderly. It never was anything like “insurance” and once he even admitted the Soc. Sec. was “politics all the way through.”

Even the Supreme Court at one point demanded that the President stop telling Americans that Soc. Sec. was an insurance policy. But he thumbed his nose at the courts and the truth and lied with abandon.

Roosevelt also created the Democrat Party as a reimagined plantation for African Americans lying repeatedly to their faces that he intended to “help” them achieve equality but rarely lifting a finger to enact any such policies all the while reaping the benefit of their slavish support of the Democrat Party.

His conduct of the war effort aside, Franklin Roosevelt ranks as one of the worst, most dangerous presidents in American history. He joins Wilson and Lyndon Baines Johnson as the chief murderers of the United States of America and for the most part he should not be venerated as he is.

Worst of all, Franklin Roosevelt created the office of the president not as a leader but as the liar-in-chief who will lie to the people as he carries out his arrogant, hidden agenda.

After Roosevelt, every single Democrat president understood that if he said one thing and did another he’d likely maintain his power. Lies have ruled the day and they have never stopped.

A nation of lies is Franklin Roosevelt’s disgusting legacy. Obama has inculcated that rule by lies to become the biggest liar this country has ever seen in the White House. But he and his ilk learned their craft at FDR’s knee.

Weekend Caption Contest™ Winners
Tulsa Police Capt. Suspended for Refusing to Attended Ordered Muslims Mosque Services
  • Brucehenry

    Oh my God loony stuff indeed.

    • Vagabond661

      Which part? Or are you just mocking?

      • Brucehenry

        the ignorant part

        • jim_m

          But that was your first comment…

          • Brucehenry

            Paul gets it pretty close as does this shiell person.

            American capitalists ought to thank God every day that FDR was president when he was. He saved capitalism. There could easily have been revolution in the streets of America had it not been for his wisdom and leadership.

            It is entirely possible a populist/fascist like Huey Long or a Communist dictator could have come to power.

            I’m sure he would say “You’re welcome.”

          • Paul Hooson

            Many immigrants to the U.S. came from Eastern Europe or parts of Europe where Socialist or Communist views were becoming more popular, so it was not difficult for many Americans to accept that perhaps some Socialist or Communist solution to the growing poverty and economic problems might be a workable solution. It appeared the Industrial Revolution might have failed as people were moved from rural and agricultural background to the cities for jobs, but instead unemployment and poverty often resulted. Beyond private charity works for the poor such as soup kitchens, the first government safety net programs were partially designed to undermine the growing influence and strengths of Socialist and Communist organizations.

            Some organizations like the Socialist Labor Party had an appealing platform to many workers, where private ownership of larger businesses would disappear and the workers would collectively own the company, electing a representative to a Worker’s Congress that would manage production and help to rule the country along with a higher ruling Worker’s Panel of leadership and possibly even one top leader who would act as spokesman for the nation as well as conduct foreign policy and trade with other nations. The SLP has been viewed as a type of political cult by many because the organization is based off the Marxist interpretations and writings of Daniel DeLeon, who died in NYC in 1914, but whose views had a lot of influence on American Socialist ideology, while other Socialists like the Socialist Worker’s Party were influenced by Leon Trotsky, and the Trotskyite Communist movement. DeLeon was seen as a more peaceful leftist than many, as he challenged both labor and society to peaceful changes. He was very influential in British Socialist thinking.

          • jim_m

            Paul, the industrial revolution was over long before the great depression. Dislocation due to industrialization was over long before the 30’s. Unions grew in popularity, not because they were great social support institutions but because they offered the worker power to defend against unscrupulous magnates like Henry Frick.

            And communism was not that popular in the US in the 20’s and 30’s. Americans saw communists as the enemy after WWI as many believed that the communists had sold out to our enemies in the Great War.

            The 1920’s was an era of anti-communism and communists were associated with terrorists and anarchists. Go look up the Palmer Raids and you will see that the US was putting thousands of people in prison out of fear of communism. Communism wasn’t popular with the general public in this era no matter what you think.

          • Paul Hooson

            The class of rising capitalists like Henry Ford were certainly concerned about the rise of leftists and unionists both, sometimes using his own goons to assault and breakup union attempts or pressuring government to crackdown on leftists. – Henry Ford was such a mixed bag. He urged African-Americans to migrate from the South to Detroit, Dearborn or other industrial areas, and even set up schools to teach them to read and write, and raised them up to be middle class, but he fought unions on other hand with a zeal and was nearly as anti-Jewish as Hitler, although very welcoming of Blacks.

          • jim_m

            Paul’s understanding of history is tragic at best. He should stick to boasting about his family. At least that cannot be disproven by a quick google search.

      • jim_m

        Bruce no longer provides substantial criticism. He just mocks and insults.

      • Commander_Chico

        All of it. The depression part, the WW II part.

        • Vagabond661

          The mocking part…

          • Brucehenry

            Well you have supplied us with the butthurt part.

          • Vagabond661

            Ah followed by the sarcastic part…

          • Brucehenry

            Sorry I didn’t know I had to put aside my sense of humor to avoid hurting the feefees of Vagabond 661

            Man up Mary

          • Vagabond661

            Oh that’s humor?

            Wow…sorry man…….for you.

          • What would you know about “manning up”?

    • JWH

      You ought to be a bit more specific.

    • Bird666

      I don’t agree with Brucehenry on much of anything, and I think Jim_m is the most learned commentator in this thread, but this article has a childish pettyness to it that diminishes much of what it tries to report.

    • Why bless your shriveled little heart for sharing with us what passes for the thoughts of a hemorrhoid.

  • Paul Hooson

    The Great Depression and WWII were such serious crisis situations that a strong-armed leader was needed at the time. Roosevelt was re-elected multiple times in landslide wins, and helped to create the American middle class as well as protected the survival of corporations during the Great Depression. – One good example was the Auburn-Cord-Duesenberg Motor Car Company. The bottom fell out for even stars like Clark Gable to buy $100,000 cars in the 30’s, so Roosevelt had this company build kitchen cabinets for the middle class homes that Americans were going to live in. And public works projects like the WPA and other programs built the first highways, creating more future demand for automobiles. – Further, Roosevelt helped make our politics more centrist as growing poverty and the Great Depression only helped to swell support for leftist political parties like the Progressives, Socialists and Communists, where millions of Americans would have been willing to accept a Communist government in this country if it meant a full stomach and a job.- In the 1920 election, as an example, 38% of Jewish voters supported Socialist candidate Eugene Debs, because of growing poverty problems in the U.S. even before the Great Depression. Many Americans had at least one family member or relative who joined the Communist Party(CPUSA) during the 20’s or 30’s as poverty worsened in the country…

    • sshiell

      Much of FDRs agenda was to counter the growing popularity of the parties of the far left; Socialists, Communists, Marxists and even Fascists. Example is the rise of the German Bundt movement, trying to mirror the success of the Nazi Party in Germany. FDR may have been the Liar-In-Chief but he was faced with an untenable situation and fought as well as he could. I am no FDR fan nor am I an apologist for the man but, even in hindsight, his policies were dictated by the times.

    • jim_m

      All of the New Deal was passed in his first term. In his second term much of his agenda was overturned by the Supreme Court. This is why he proposed packing the Supreme court in his second term. He also lost a significant part of his majorities in the mid term in 38. The economy was declining after 1937 and it was the war that saved his ass.

      So you are left with a man whose major political victories were ruled unconstitutional, who wanted to subvert the constitution and the separation of powers to achieve his ends anyway, and whose economic solutions had all failed prior to the war.

      But he did handle the war (at least the initial part) well.

      • Paul Hooson

        A lot of Roosevelt had faults and wasn’t without controversy, where his economic solutions were a mixed bag. The allies needed three strong armed individuals like FDR, Churchill and Stalin to win the war. War contracts certainly rescued many businesses struggling to sell enough cars to stay in business. Willys-Overland couldn’t even handle all of the Jeep contracts for example, so Ford also built many of the Jeeps. And Studebaker trucks largely were sent to Russia as part of the Lend Lease program, where minor automakers like this got a real financial bounce.

        The Red Army made an effective weapon of the little Studebaker trucks, mounting Katyusha rocket launchers on them making them one of the most feared weapons to the Nazi army, where the little Katyusha rockets were able to quickly leave an entire battlefield in ruin and quickly decimate an army in what the Germans thought was unfair and dirty combat tactics.

      • Paul Hooson

        The Lend Lease production of Studebaker trucks for the Red Army by Roosevelt was certainly an improvement over some of the very low-tech weapons the Russians were using. For example, dogs were trained as suicide bombers to destroy German tanks, outfitted with bomb vests and an antenna that worked similar to a hand grenade mechanism. Although it was very tough emotionally on many Russians to see dogs die, these dogs were viewed as great heroes who saved many lives. In the siege of Stalingrad, 5,000 people a day were dying of starvation or shelling, and these dogs saved many lives.

        This is a Russian model kit of these suicide bomber dogs, and a pretty good example of the plight of the Red Army before the help of Roosevelt with the Lend Lease program.

        • Well I’m sorry. . . suicide bomber dogs is evil. . . just because stupid men have no better sense than to get into war, don’t bring the innocent dogs in on it. Roosevelt was a bitter evil ugly ole man, no doubt. What America needs to do is bomb the hell out of Iran, Islam which is ISIS BTW, destroy MECCA, leaving nothing but sand and glass. Then take on Washington DC and get rid of every Mosque in the US. NOW!!!!

      • Commander_Chico

        Is it possible the economy declined because “in his second term much of his agenda was overturned by the Supreme Court?”

        Certainly correlates with the GDP growth numbers.

        • How ever have we managed to get by without the pronouncements of soi disant cognoscenti damn liars all this time?

  • GarandFan

    Two quotes from Henry Morgenthau, Jr., FDR’s Sec Treasury, regarding FDR’s policies to combat the Great Depression.
    “We’re spending more than ever, and it doesn’t work!”
    “All that money…………wasted!”

    • Brucehenry

      Morgenthau was wrong. It did work.

      • GarandFan

        No, WWII “worked”. And I’ll take Henry’s insight over yours any day.

        • Brucehenry

          As I said, without all that spending, without all that “money wasted,” we may very well be living under some Soviet-style dictatorship today. Morgenthau didn’t have the benefit of 80 years of hindsight. He was wrong then and he’s even more wrong today. So’s Warner.

          • jim_m

            The express purpose of the spending was to get the country out of the depression. Claiming retroactively that it prevented a communist revolution is a stretch and is a pretty lame defense since it essentially acknowledges that FDR failed in his purpose.

          • Brucehenry

            Kind of like claiming retroactively that the War in Vietnam was fought to prevent the “Killing Fields”?

            The spending did alleviate the worst of the depression and get many Americans back to work. The Great Depression was similar to the current world economy in that it was a years-long not months-long event. The economy was getting slowly but steadily better until FDR began taking Morgenthau’s advice and cutting spending. Then there was a recession. FDR corrected course and the recovery continued.

            Claims that WW2 got us out of the Depression have much merit but claims that FDR failed are given the lie by the fact that the New Deal programs put in place, and his advocacy of the GI Bill of Rights set the stage for the unprecedented prosperity of the Truman-Eisenhower-Kennedy-Johnson-Nixon years. It wasn’t until the Reagan revolution that the US got into the ever-worsening bubble-bust cycle we are afflicted with today.

          • jim_m

            The new deal had nothing to do with post war prosperity. Most of it had been undone by then. Funny how you claim that FDR’s unconstitutional agencies made, America prosperous, but simultaneously claim that Reagan’s monetary policy and deregulation did nothing to improve the economy and carry on with Paul about how terrible Reagan was.

          • jim_m

            Actually, by the time of Vietnam the lethal record of communism was well. Establushed. Just because you are OK with genocide in the name of your ideology but hate having that fact pointed out, doesn’t make it less of a fact.

        • Exactly right, GrandFan. Without WWII FDR would have been marked down as the wholly failed president he really is. Only WWII saved him from ignominy.

          • Brucehenry

            A “wholly failed” president who was re-elected 3 times and whose VP was re-elected after the war.

        • Brucehenry

          Another one of “Henry’s insights” was this one:

          “We have never begun to tax the people in this country the way they should be…I don’t pay what I should. People in my class don’t. People who have it should pay.”

      • No serious economist can prove it did.

        • Commander_Chico

          You just wrote Hitler brought the country out of depression because of the war.

          Of course the war brought unprecedented levels of government borrowing and spending. That is what did it.

          The fact is, Roosevelt didn’t spend enough money on things like the WPA, CCC (my uncle was in it), etc.



          Amazing how many “conservatives” are “War Keynesians” – government spending in war is good, but spending on roads and bridges is bad.


          • jim_m

            Thanks for furnishing a perfect example of left wing excuse making. It wasn’t that FDR’a left wing policies failed, it was that he was insufficiently left wing in his execution of them.

            There was a dramatic difference between the war and his New Deal, not the least of which was taking a million people off of unemployment and out of the labor pool by putting them in the military.

          • Commander_Chico

            Let’s assume there was no Hitler, no Tojo.

            In economic terms, what would have been the difference in hiring more people for the CCC, roadworks, or writing and art projects (which the WPA also did), and putting them in the army?

            I just don’t get how you think borrowing money and hiring people for roadworks to stimulate demand in a depression is “left wing,” but having them in the army is not left wing. The economic doctrine which operates is Keynesian in both cases.

            Must be your worship of war or something.

            Of course, war is the least beneficial government spending for the economy, because so much of it is spent overseas.

          • jim_m

            The simple fact is that in order to employ the vast numbers of people required would have necessitated the creation of a command economy that would have dwarfed the soviets.

            Also, the military spend was mostly productive. A lot of the road works, etc done by the CCC were make work sorts of jobs and didn’t contribute much.

            Effectively your response is screw the constitution, we should have had a dictator. This is a pretty common theme on the left these days. It wasn’t the dismantling of the new deal that cause the economic downturn. It was the lack of any real, lasting contribution from it. It was essentially the Obama stimulus with less graft and corruption.

          • Commander_Chico

            WW II was about as close to a “command economy” as the USA ever had.

            Complete takeover of manufacturing by military production, no civilian automobiles or other machinery produced, food, gas and clothing rationing.

            I still see cast plaques bearing the WPA name on sidewalks and facilities in parks and towns.

          • Brucehenry

            The CCC basically built Hanging Rock State Park here in NC, including all the hiking trails and the ranger station. Hundreds of other federal and state parks all over the country, same story. Hanging Rock gets tens of thousands of visitors a year 7 decades later. Failed president my ass.

          • Brucehenry

            I believe at the peak there were 8 million men in uniform. During the course of the war over 16 million people served. Almost half a million died.

        • Commander_Chico

          yeah it did work. Numbers don’t lie.


          going from more than -10% contraction to more than 10% GDP growth is pretty damn good.

          • jim_m

            As we have seen with Obama, GDP is not the same as an economy that puts people back to work and enables them to keep a roof over their heads and food on their tables.

            And since we know that Government spending is also captured as GDP the fact that the government spent loads of money is not evidence that the wider economy did anything. The same is true for Obama’s spending. Excessive government spending but never anything to actually to improve the economy. Instead we got massive regulation that has stifled the economy.

            Saying that FDR saved the economy by massive government spending increase is bullshit. It is especially funny to hear that coming form asshats that claim that the problem with Reagan was that he increased government spending. Seems once again that it is one of those things that is only good when a lefty does it.

          • Brucehenry

            The people at the time saw that Roosevelt’s policies WERE working to put them back to work, keep a roof over their head, and food on their tables. That’s why they re-elected the man THREE FUCKING TIMES and re-elected Truman to continue the New Deal policies they could plainly see had lifted the country out of Hoover’s and Coolidge’s mess.

            My mother, 10 years old when FDR was first elected, always credited him personally with keeping her family from literal starvation. Literal. Starvation. Her father always said the same thing.

            You and Warner kill me with your revisionist nonsense, especially when you talk about how no “serious economists” think FDR was worth a shit. “Serious economists,” apparently, being the ones who spout the same loony horseshit you are espousing here.

          • jim_m

            Yes, my mother has a similar experience and remembers when he died wondering who would be President because he didn’t have any kids.
            But the truth is that many believe that his actions prolonged the depression. Certainly, government programs to provide a safety net did not exist at the time and what he did do was provide a safety net for many, many people.

            The difference between you and I Bruce, is that I do not see a deity in every democrat who sits in the oval office. You do. You don’t think that FDR could have ever done anything better or that he ever made any mistakes.

          • Brucehenry

            No you see a demon. Perfectly predictable.

          • Brucehenry

            FDR did have kids.

          • But damn liars certainly do enumerate.

      • jim_m

        No it didn’t work. Most serious economists today (ie not ideological shills like Paul Krugman) believe that FDR’s programs prolonged the depression and didn’t solve anything. If you look at the numbers the economy didn’t really do much until WWII. The war solved unemployment in a twinkling of an eye and provided a large demand for manufactured goods of all kinds. Plus, it wasn’t just our government paying for it, there was a lot of money invested from Britain and Russia, who were paying for weapons and supplies from us (or borrowing to do so to be precise). While some public works projects provided beneficial outcomes most, like the CCC, did little to really put the nation back to work.

      • Commander_Chico

        yeah it did work.


        going from more than -10% contraction to more than 10% GDP growth is pretty damn good.

  • Bird666

    “Roosevelt created Pearl Harbor with a concerted policy of starving Japan of the raw materials it wanted for its expansionist efforts in the Pacific.”

    So I guess Roosevelt should have let Japan take over the Pacific and they’d have been a happy and peaceful occupier. Japan bears no responsibility for its aggression, eh? It’s all Roosevelt’s fault? Ever heard of the rape of Nanking?

    I’m no champion of FDR and his economics, but to suggest his making it easier for Imperial Japan to conquer the Pacific theater by not opposing it in any way and then it would just play nice forever is just weird.

    • Any claim that I made a suggestion what he should have done instead of what he did with Japan is reading into what I wrote, not reading what I wrote.

      • Bird666

        You wrote that he created Pearl Harbor. I pasted your words above. I tend to think the Japanese created the Pearl Harbor attack. But that’s just me.

        • jim_m

          I have to agree. The plain reading of the text would make you think that the US was at fault for Pearl Harbor because we provoked the Japanese and that the Japanese were merely defending their rights.

          Sounds like something that you would see at the Smithsonian.

          • Again, you read into it. I never said FDR should not have done what he did.mBut because he did it, the Japanese had a specific and obvious reaction, one FDR intended to happen. I made no value judgments on either action.

          • Commander_Chico

            Don’t be a wimp. Own your words.

            Roosevelt essentially caused the sneak attack at Pearl Harbor. What should really “live in infamy” is the fact that Roosevelt lied us into that war.

          • Again, there was no judgement on whether we needed to get in the war, only that he lied every step of the way doing it. The emphasis is clearly on the LIES not the war. As it happens, I think FDR was 100% right that we needed to help defeat Hitler. So, no, I don’t have anything to “own” like what you and your fans above are claiming.

  • Commander_Chico

    FDR replies to Warner and his ilk from the grave:

    We had to struggle with the old enemies of peace—business and financial monopoly, speculation, reckless banking, class antagonism, sectionalism, war profiteering.

    They had begun to consider the Government of the United States as a mere appendage to their own affairs. We know now that Government by organized money is just as dangerous as Government by organized mob.

    Never before in all our history have these forces been so united against one candidate as they stand today. They are unanimous in their hate for me—and I welcome their hatred.

  • Laddie_Blah_Blah

    I haven’t seen the PBS “documentary” but I can’t help wondering if they bothered to tell their audience about “Operation Keelhaul,” which FDR’s own Sec’y of State characterized as a war crime in direct violation of the Geneva Convention:


    “In Operation Keelhaul (1973), Epstein revealed in detail the forced repatriation at the end of World War II of some four million Soviet citizens, expatriated White Russians (who had emigrated from Russia after the Bolshevik Revolution and thus never had been Soviet citizens), and other Eastern Europeans to the Soviet Union and to those countries within its sphere of influence after 1945. These people – Red Army POWs and civilians captured by the Nazis along with followers of General Andrei Vlasov’s Russian Liberation Army – were all considered to be traitors by the Soviets, and were severely persecuted. Most were condemned to lengthy prison terms, including in the Gulag, and many were executed—including some who were summarily executed on the spot of their handover to the Soviets, within earshot of British and American troops.

    “Described by Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn as ‘the last secret of World War II,’ the forced repatriation was agreed upon in a secret codicil to the Yalta Agreement and was kept from the public for decades after World War II had ended. Epstein first became aware of Operation Keelhaul in 1954, while doing other research at a government archive. After being told the files notated in the card catalogue as ‘383.74: Forcible Repatriation of Soviet Citizens – Operation Keelhaul’ were classified… Though he was already able to expose Roosevelt/Truman administration perfidy by 1957… he would have to labor for 20 years to acquire the files necessary to write his comprehensive treatment on the subject, including suing the government to force them to de-classify and release the files.”

    It wasn’t just the principals who were forced to return to the tender mercies of Joe Stalin, but their wives and children, too. Stalin had a policy of killing the immediate relatives of his primary targets to ensure they would not seek vengeance for his murder of their fathers, mothers, brothers, sisters and children.

    How many Americans have ever heard that FDR was a war criminal, and an accessory to the murder of anywhere from 2 mn to 4 mn people, just because Joe Stalin wanted them dead? Dozens of war criminals were convicted and executed at Nuremburg for complicity in the deaths of far fewer than died as a result of FDR’s crime against millions of Russians, Poles, Czechs, Hungarians, et. al.

    To put what FDR did in some historical perspective, consider that an estimated 1 mn Japanese died in WWII, civilian and military, combined. FDR was complicit in the deaths of up to 4 mn anti-Communists in post-WWI Europe. Eichmann was tried, convicted, and hung, in Israel, in part, for being complicit in the rounding up and the deportation of up to 600,000 Hungarian Jews to German concentration camps. FDR was guilty of rounding up 4 mn helpless refuges and shipping them off to Stalin’s Soviet Union where death awaited them, one and all. Eichmann used the excuse that he was only following orders – FDR had no such excuse because he was the one giving the orders.

    • Brucehenry

      You posted the wrong link, here’s the right one:


      Looks like the Yalta conference said one thing and the repatriations told about in Wikipedia were something else. Read the link carefully. While this forced repatriation may have been criminal FDR’s fingerprints don’t really appear to be all over it, at least not so’s you can tell by the Wikipedia article.

      • Laddie_Blah_Blah

        FDR personally ordered the repatriation. Churchill was initially opposed, but FDR changed his mind by offering several billions in post-war aid to help finance the reconstruction of London.

        Don’t kid yourself or the others here, Epstein’s book documented what took place and FDR’s own acting Sec’y of State protested what FDR was doing, citing the Geneva Conventions, which specified the forced repatriation of war refugees as a war crime.

        Epstein’s book is the best source, and the most authoritative one. He was stonewalled by the Truman and Eisenhower administrations, which did not want the American public to know what their own government under FDR’s administration, and Eisenhower’s field command, had done.

        Epstein talked to US soldiers who had taken part in forcing recalcitrant POWs to board cattle cars at German concentration camps, being forced to go from one hell-hole to another. Many were anti-communist as well as anti-fascist. Some committed suicide rather than return. Many had to be bludgeoned into submission before being loaded unto the cattle cars.

        Some families murdered their own children before the parents killed themselves.

        That atrocity has been air-brushed from history long enough. Don’t allow yourself to become part of the whitewash.

        Don’t take my word for it. Get your own copy of Epstein’s book, and read it.

        • Brucehenry

          Thanks, maybe I will.

          EDIT: Amazon has it for $84! Little rich for my blood.

          Must be out of print. No Kindle edition. Makes me wonder about it. There are no Google reviews and only 4 reader reviews on Amazon, one from a holocaust-denier. You sure about this book?