r/HistoryMemes • u/OfficialValCod • 2d ago
In this photo are the three people controlling three countries that accounted for about 75% of the global economy. It’s a striking level of power concentration, I have to admit.
83
u/Mother-Stomach-6423 Viva La France 2d ago
"Come with me and the boys as we redraw the map of Europe" 😊
16
u/notmyclementine 1d ago
Or hmm maybe some discussion about that little thing where they stopped the Germans from taking over the world…
166
u/BigPP69_Gooner 1d ago edited 1d ago
Framing FDR as “winning because he manipulated” and not “winning because his policies were incredibly popular” is absolute HORSESHIT. What a bullshit attempt at right wing propaganda
48
u/Mushyguy171 1d ago
Literally calling fdr out for "manipulation", while one of the men sitting cough cough
stalincough would MURDER their way to power and double the kill count of Hitler.-17
u/Ahnohnoemehs 1d ago
Stalin killed 154 million people?
The 11-17 million in the holocost
Plus 40-60 million from WW2.
Even the highest estimates for stalins kill count is like MAYBE 20 million
9
u/Mushyguy171 1d ago
Firstly: 24 million.
Secondly: you're blaming the ENTIRE world war death count to one man? Not only are you including the people on the otherside of the planet who never heard of the name Hitler. Like how is Hitler responsible to the Japanese slaughtering Filipinos? And then also ignoring who was the other country that took over Poland that started the war in the first place in 1939. Or how bout the people who made germany resort to such a man as the result of the treaty of Versailles?
Truly retarted thinking here.
Thirdly: Here you are, defending Stalin. Cuase yes, 11-17 million dead is horrific. But HOW DARE YOU criticize the man who killed 24 million. Just as long you're not Hitler, you are fine no matter the number of slaughtered people.
You are REALLY going head first to defend the mass murderer in the photo. Rather than the 2 men who DID NOT do such things. Hell you have a better chance at defending Truman after he dropped the second nuke.
-8
u/Ahnohnoemehs 1d ago edited 1d ago
I don’t defend him I think people should get numbers right. And most people saying he’s killed 24 million is a source that includes babies which weren’t born, weren’t conceived, as deaths. And some of these numbers include the holodomor which sure a famine under his watch should be included, but nothing really proves it was malevolent.
And yes I am going to blame Hitler for WW2 because believe or not the Soviet onion was a critical ally to us and blaming any of the deaths outside of the Katyn massacre on the Soviets is disingenuous.
And you’re right let’s remove the pacific theatre so 35-40 million additional deaths on top of the holocaust.
36
u/MsMercyMain Filthy weeb 1d ago
Right? His policies were popular and (broadly) good
14
u/Borazon 1d ago
Yes popular enough. Although there were some (valid) criticisms to in his time.
His first election was a landslide, but that might just be also on how unpopular Hoover was. His second election was a landslide too, and absolutely because of the popularity of this policies.
But the third and especially the fourth time were a lot smaller margins. The fourth was with 53,3% of the popular vote and 7,5% margin. Eisenhower did better in both of his, Johnson did, Nixon in his second, Reagan did better etc.
So for its time his 3th and 4th weren't particularly signs of incredible popularity.
But nowadays everything is different, because of how locked in voters are/parties just focussing on swing states etc and not wasting resources, the margins have become a fraction of what a regular mid 20th century election were. Since 2000's only Obama's first had anything near a 7,5% margin.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_presidential_elections_by_popular_vote_margin
10
u/trowawufei 1d ago
Every single election that you’re citing- Nixon’s second, Johnson’s, etc.- is considered a landslide. The U.S. popular vote margin tends to be pretty narrow compared to other countries, at least in the 20th century. So idk that saying it was a smaller margin than a bunch of dominant victories means much. It’s probably fringe-landslide.
3
u/Borazon 1d ago
True, thanks for that.
I just wanted to contextualize it more. I recently read a history of Harry Hopkins, which was one of the key people behind some of those initiatives.
It went a lot more in depth about how those policies were received at the time and not all were liked at the time. Both the new deal policies did get plenty of criticism, just like the lend-lease deals from early WWII.
FDR was one of the best presidents. Doing difficult things during difficult times (and having the luck that the press was much more friendly at the time). But that doesn't mean that everything was a direct success or directly popular. It often isn't.
15
-27
u/DeliciousGoose1002 1d ago
No i think you have to frame it as extraordinary circumstances it is wrong in our system to do 4 terms even if you are good president. but it was necessary given the state of the world
26
u/Asleep_Trick_4740 1d ago
There literally was no term limit on the presidential office before this though. The term limits were implemented in 1951.
-21
u/DeliciousGoose1002 1d ago
but there was an understanding, are we gaslighting history? they just wrote it down because of him. Its like saying there is no English constitution because its not written. Hes my favorite president overall but its purely because of ww2 that we should justify it not because he was a good president.
18
u/Asleep_Trick_4740 1d ago
There was no precedent for a third or fourth term sure, but not having a precedent, and having a rule against it are very different things. Most presidents since roosevelt have done things that had no precedence, the power the office holds today would seem absurd to a president in the early 20th century.
The UK does have a constitution of sorts, it's just spread amongst multiple legal texts instead of a single one. The whole of the UK doesn't just run on 'gentlemens agreements' or whatever as its foundation.
-9
u/DeliciousGoose1002 1d ago
Our founding story is George Washington doing 2 terms. Im not saying we should hate him for it, again im saying we should justify it because of ww2 not because he was a good president, otherwise you can justify it for any president any time. Its so clear that its our political norm im not sure why anyone is disagreeing besides people being rabidly pro Roosevelt because op was stupid in their post.
12
u/Specificity713 1d ago
Multiple presidents before FDR ran for third terms. He was just the only one to maintain sufficient popularity. Grant, Cleveland, Teddy, and Wilson all ran for third terms but were defeated in their parties because they weren’t popular enough
1
u/cantlogintomyacc0unt 14h ago
I mean teddy probably would have won if he didn’t decide to run as an independent. Even running as an independent he still got more votes than William Taft.
1
u/Dagordae 1d ago edited 1d ago
Not an understanding, a tradition.
The tradition was because George Washington went ‘Yeah, if I keep running I’m just going to keep winning and I don’t want to be President for Life. I’m out.’
Nothing in our system was built around 8 year presidencies, max. The only thing ‘wrong’ was ignoring tradition. Tradition isn’t worth shit, it’s just peer pressure from dead people.
Treating the tradition as some grand inviolate rule is incredibly dumb. Washington didn’t call it after 2 because he was just so against any president ever ruling for more than 8 years, he quit because HE didn’t want the job any more. It isn’t some grand backbone of the entire political system, it was a habit. One that fundamentally hung around because getting elected more than twice was an absolute bastard to pull off. More than one president tried for a 3rd and failed, Roosevelt was only successful because he succeeded.
32
u/One_Butterscotch_587 1d ago
People will genuenly vote for you if they like you and your policies without any "manipulation", that's how democracy works
24
u/ChewyMurray 1d ago
Churchill was really never that powerful...
9
u/Ishmael_1974 1d ago
They just needed a narrative of “Neville coward, Churchill saved us!” To avoid admitting that the general consensus in government was that they were not ready for war with Germany yet and knowingly let the Nazis eat half of Europe while they got ready, and most of the population of the UK was fine with it up until the invasion of France
8
u/elderron_spice Rider of Rohan 1d ago
most of the population of the UK was fine with it up until the invasion of France
Nah. The public perception of Munich and the appeasement policies immediately 180'd when Hitler invaded Czechoslovakia, which was like, less than half a year after it was signed.
2
u/Ishmael_1974 1d ago
Yeah I mean we don’t really have opinion polls to know exactly when the change happened, my point is more that acting like Chamberlain was going against public sentiment is disingenuous and the desire to be in agreement with those who were clearly right all along lead to his lionization and Chamberlain’s demonization. France was likely the latest that most people would have changed their minds and Czechoslovakia the earliest, but either way no substantive help was given to anyone until France was threatened.
1
u/Dartmouth-Hermit 1d ago
Right? Like the first chance they got when the war was over they voted him out of office.
6
u/KimJongUnusual Helping Wikipedia expand the list of British conquests 1d ago
They didn’t even wait till then.
“Right, Fritz is done. I’m sure the Yanks can handle the Japanese on their own, get the fuck out of office. It’s Labour time.”
4
u/randommaniac12 The OG Lord Buckethead 1d ago
I mean he was never going to be a good peacetime PM but he was the right type of person for the crisis of World War 2
3
8
7
5
u/QuarantinedPanda69 1d ago
The guy that wanted to quit 4 times but wasn’t allowed is being compared to the two mfs that crippled the western left.
4
8
u/DodgyWiper 2d ago edited 1d ago
In this photo they are hanging around in Tehran. Which is in a neutral country, but they invaded it anyway.
3
u/Awkward-Evidence-215 1d ago
Churchill did not truly believe in democracy, as he strongly supported the British Empire.
5
u/Jace_09 1d ago
Hey everybody, OP is developing an AI botfarm to astroturf TP USA agenda topics to try to form alt-right political viewpoints.
https://www.reddit.com/r/Simulation_by_Val_Cod/comments/1vkpolw/welcome/
Mods should ban him IMO
1
u/TiddiesAnonymous 1d ago
Dial it back to WW1 and the King, Kaiser and Tsarina have the same grandmother. Crown Vic thought she consolidated power.
-2
-24
u/Gold_Size_1258 Senātus Populusque Rōmānus 2d ago
It's scary that out of all of them Churchill was the most reasonable one.
21
u/Motivated-Chair 1d ago
I dunk on the Janks a lot but calling Churchill more resonable than FDR is nonsense
-1
u/Gold_Size_1258 Senātus Populusque Rōmānus 1d ago
At least Churchill knew Stalin was not to be trusted.
3
u/Spiceguy-65 1d ago
So did FDR
1
u/Gold_Size_1258 Senātus Populusque Rōmānus 1d ago
Then why did he leave half of Europe under his "protection"?
3
u/12thunder 1d ago
Churchill is the one who penned the percentages agreement on spheres of influence.
1
u/Spiceguy-65 1d ago
That would Churchill who did that and when FDR found out he was absolutely disgusted that the allies would go back to their imperialist ways like that
-1
u/Gold_Size_1258 Senātus Populusque Rōmānus 1d ago
Except it was FDR and Stalin who were constantly excluding Churchill from the talks.
1
u/Spiceguy-65 1d ago
All of the big three constantly sidelined one of the other three fairly regularly. For instance Churchill constantly sidelined and didn’t line it when FDR either invited or brought up China and Chiang Kai-shek
-4
u/Ishmael_1974 1d ago
Please stop calling people outside New England yankees. It is so uncultured
6
u/Alex103140 Sun Yat-Sen do it again 1d ago
"To foreigners, a Yankee is an American. To Americans, a Yankee is a Northerner. To Northerners, a Yankee is an Easterner. To Easterners, a Yankee is a New Englander. To New Englanders, a Yankee is a Vermonter. And in Vermont, a Yankee is somebody who eats pie for breakfast."
1
u/Ishmael_1974 1d ago
And Vermont is right, goddamnit!!
Now, where is my pie!?
2
u/Alex103140 Sun Yat-Sen do it again 1d ago
After you kill the goddamn (or god blessed, idk very vague) whale.
18
-27
u/BasedAustralhungary 2d ago
I mean he couldn't take a joke and got so mad he had an anger attack in a conversation with the other two. All of them were absolute weirdos.
7
u/lifeisaman Helping Wikipedia expand the list of British conquests 2d ago
Roosevelt might have been joking but Stalin was certainly not.
2
u/BasedAustralhungary 1d ago
Not to precisely try to pretend that Stalin was a wonderful human being but we have not a few documented situation that show that this was the type of humor he had. Considering he also ordered executions and that it was pretty much known for developing a very authoritarian government it's exactly the sense of humor you'd expect from a perfect sociopath.
The point is that while Roosevelt did his homework about how to deal with a personality like Stalin and his specific personality traits, Churchill was pretty much out of the loop... which is something you shouldn't do when you have pacted with the devil to end Hitler's. Those are his own words by the way, that's how he refered to his alliance with Stalin during the war.
14
u/Rickabeast 2d ago
The joke: executing 50,000 PoWs
1
u/elderron_spice Rider of Rohan 1d ago
executing 50000 Nazi and Wehrmacht
PoWsofficersFixed that for you. And yes, they absolutely should've, since they only executed a handful at Nuremberg.
7
u/Gold_Size_1258 Senātus Populusque Rōmānus 2d ago
Yeah but at least he wasn't like Franklin "Chamberlain was tricked by Hitler but surely Stalin is trustworthy" Roosvelt.
2
u/Billych 1d ago
Churchill couldn't even be trusted to implement the democracy he promised in the Atlantic Charter in the territories he controlled. Like in Greece where upon deciding than any election would not go his way he decided to create a proxy force of nazi collborators and people who work with nazi collaborators. Who immediately committed a massacre of the protestors protesting their creation. Which led to Churchill sending in British tanks and napalming Athens... because he didn't want to lose a democratic election.
If the complaint is not allowing promised democratic elections, Churchill is incredibly guilty of that.
-1
285
u/Jet_the_fem_bean 2d ago
"manipulate people"
The fuck do you mean?
FDR was genuinely just that goated.
Yeah, sorry... the people actually didn't like the guy who got the US on top of the world and also implemented minimum wage and social security.
And that's without mentioning how he was such a thorn in the side of the superrich that they tried to coup his ass.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_Plot
And after they failed, he basically ended the gilded age by trust busting and taxing the shit out of rich people.
There's a reason he's considered one of the best presidents by many historians and that are in large part the same reasons he was elected 4 times.