⚠️ This post has been marked as offensive.
FDR did the same to the Japanese
But he also fought Hitler, whose camps were significantly worse.
He did a lot of positive stuff fiscally for the German people; he built a lot of highways and improved the German economy.
German economy in 1945 wasnt exactly any good.
"We cannot be defeated. We may be destroyed, but if we are, we will drag the world with us, the wold in flames."
FDR didn't get involved in WWII to end the Holocaust; he got involved because of the Pearl Harbor attacks
But he did get involved, and he did fight Hitler, and people care more about policies more than the reasons behind them. Also, lend-lease was before Pearl Harbor.
If a living Jeffery Epstein releases the names of 20 sexual predators to get a lesser sentence, then we wouldn't approve of Jeffery Epstein as a whole because he had his own skeletons.
That's not because he has skeletons, but specifically he helped the same people who he's now fighting against, so you could argue he's basically responsible for the problem he's solving. So, more akin to Stalin fighting against Hitler after the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact.
The argument is that with a pedophile turning in his accomplices, the good action is stained with his responsibility for what happened. With FDR, fighting Hitler didn't require the camps, it was a separate event. So it's easy to brush aside.
But FDR both helped to prevent a genocide and created one.
But the genocide he prevented was much bigger and not one he caused in the first place.
If I murder one girl and help to save another; I'm still insane.
Or you'll be worshiped as a hero, depending on the situation and how people report it. Even Columbus was celebrated for a while.
He did like .5% of the work to end the Holocaust; the brunt was the Soviets
Soviets would have lost without lend-lease. Stalin admitted as much. Plus the early success of the Nazis was partly Stalin's fault.
If I save 1000 people and murder 1, then I'm not moral. Otherwise, we should let volunteer doctors get away with murder. They saved thousands of lives, they can kill 5.
You can oppose something someone did while still holding them up as a symbol for the good they did. No one is morally perfect. Obviously killing people is way worse than the average person, but saving a lot of people is also much better than the average person.
I'm pretty sure that Hitler is dead.
If not, then he would be 136 years of age.
But the Solviets did the brunt of the work.
Common soldiers did the brunt of the work, yet the leaders get the credit. It's not about who did the work so much as whose seen as making the most significant decisions.
Will you hold Hitler to that standard? He saved people from the great depression. No.
You're ignoring part of what I'm saying. Hitler killed more than he saved, FDR saved more than he killed.
I was comparing the solviets to the Americans, not Stalin to Igor the Tanker
So the direct comparison would be Stalin. Should be pretty straightforward why Stalin is less admired than FDR.
How many did Hitler and FDR save and kill? The killing figure is easier to quantify than the saving.
Hitler started WW2, I don't see him saving more than 50-85 million people. FDR was a driving force behind preventing Hitler from taking over the world, and I don't see him killing more than 100 million people or so (and that's probably an underestimate of how bad things could have gotten had Hitler won).