Worst President Ever?

[Dobbs 3K 0]

My grandparents who lived through the Great Depression and World War II said FDR gave them hope and basically "pulled this country up by the bootstraps". It's too bad we can't have a president like that anymore.

[snuffbox 0]

Another president that wasn't completely terrible but clearly ill-equipped for the job was Taft. Outside of the Presidency he didn't do too bad for himself but in the White House he was very removed from the pulse of America. Not much of a politician to begin with (his wife was more into the gig than him) he would havelost to Wilson even if Roosevelt hadn't entered the campaign.

 

Interestingly, if Teddy had not said he wouldn't seek another term, he almost certainly would have won in '08 and '12. Too bad the Adamses & Bushes couldn't handle their roles like the Roosevelt clan.

[Ginger Snaps 0]

I am of the opinion that the future societies will see Bush Jr. in a worse light than we see him now.

 

Wishful thinking, huh.

 

Yeah, Bush is bad, but people who think he's the worst have very limited (to no) historical context. Just about all of the Presidents immediately preceding the Civil War (and following it, if you consider Johnson & Grant) were a great deal worse.

 

oh, and fwiw I think Truman was a better prez than FDR.

[EricMM 0]

I swear I would pull an O'Reilly and bet you a steak dinner at the Capital City Grille that in the future Bush will be even more villified than he is now, when the true light of history on shines on all his ramifications and repercussions.

 

But I can't.

 

But there is almost no doubt in my mind that that is so. Call it wishful thinking if you want, but I would say that it's certainly more likely that wishful thinking consists of thinking that Bush will be accepted let a lone glorified by future generations.

[Dobbs 3K 0]

What past president do you think George W. Bush compares most closely to? Certainly, none of the reasonable comparisons can be that flattering.

[Guest Pizza Hut's Game Face]

It's tough to say. His executive power is unprecedented, for one thing.

[PUT THAT DICK IN MY MOUTH! 0]

What past president do you think George W. Bush compares most closely to?

 

President Hitler loll

[snuffbox 0]

A history lesson from Ginger Paul should leave us all highly informed.

[NoCalMike 0]

I swear I would pull an O'Reilly and bet you a steak dinner at the Capital City Grille that in the future Bush will be even more villified than he is now, when the true light of history on shines on all his ramifications and repercussions.

 

But I can't.

 

But there is almost no doubt in my mind that that is so. Call it wishful thinking if you want, but I would say that it's certainly more likely that wishful thinking consists of thinking that Bush will be accepted let a lone glorified by future generations.

 

I am more interested to see what history books will write about the citizens of America. At least in the 60's there seemed to be some type of effort to make a change and an informed citizenry out there. Maybe all that is just exaggerated because of our generation being brought up on films and music from the past and we think there was a lot more people out there making a difference then there actually was.

 

I know the media should have a special place in the negative commentary of this generation seeing as how they ignore a lot of the protesting and anti-war counter-culture going on in America.

[snuffbox 0]

The only reason that people in the 1960s were more involved than this generation was the draft. That's it. If this country as a whole needs to actually sacrifice, or risk people they actually know going into Iraq, the protests would be just as massive.

 

President Bush and his Administration, however, have decided to neuter our military efforts and implement such naive ideas as a 'small, agile force' rather than actually go all-out and try to win either of these wars.

[Steve J. Rogers 0]

Is there any President more universally loved than Teddy Roosevelt? I mean, you have Washington, and then maybe Lincoln... but after that, are there really any others?

 

Throw in the fellow on the nickel as well.

 

Though like Ike (great that campaign song is now going to be in my head for a while) and George Washington, he probably gets a ton of bonus points for what he did BEFORE becoming President.

 

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

 

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

Thomas Jefferson, Philadelphia 1776

[Jingus 0]

President Bush and his Administration, however, have decided to neuter our military efforts and implement such naive ideas as a 'small, agile force' rather than actually go all-out and try to win either of these wars.

Are you saying they should bring back the draft?

[Jorge Gorgeous 0]

I am of the opinion that the future societies will see Bush Jr. in a worse light than we see him now.

 

Wishful thinking, huh.

 

Yeah, Bush is bad, but people who think he's the worst have very limited (to no) historical context. Just about all of the Presidents immediately preceding the Civil War (and following it, if you consider Johnson & Grant) were a great deal worse.

 

oh, and fwiw I think Truman was a better prez than FDR.

 

Speaking of historical context, surely you know that the Presidents before and after the Civil War were handed considerably poorer circumstances than George W. Bush. I'm not saying any of those guys were better than Bush, but I'd rather handle 9/11 than a Civil War.

[At Home 0]

Well Wilson did screen and enjoy racist epic Birth of a Nation. Wilson was noted as having some interesting comments on Social Darwinsin, eugenics and civil rights. I don't have the time to really search for some quotes but if you are really interested I would be happy to pull some quotes for you.

 

EDIT: Wikipedia has an interesting section on Wilson and race if you want to start your search there.

 

Wilson was a complete raging racist and sexist. The man thought he was Jesus, after all.

 

Wilson, in my opinion, is definitely one of the absolute worst presidents in history. Just look at the guy's performance at the Treaty of Versailles talks. Unwavering on the matters of the League of Nations, he pretty much single handedly fucked over all of Europe for the next 60 years. Not to mention that he basically caused the Russian Revolutions, twice. Once because he made sure Russia stayed in the war even though the Provisional Government should've pulled out of the war IMMEDIATELY after taking power. And then again, after he refused to send troops and help to Russia while the Bolsheviks were attacking, even though he promised that the world would be safe for democracy. Fuck Wilson.

 

Also, I'm pretty sure that George Bush has shamed the United States for the next few centuries. He's causing a fucking HUGE problem in the Middle East too. One of the religious sects in northern Iraq has basically become sovereign with a loose tie to the Iraqi government, and is supported by Turkey. Iraq wants to bring that northern section back in. Turkey also wants to invade that northern section. If they do that, Iran comes in, and you've got a mess. That's why the US has been warning Turkey against invading. Like, telling them very harshly not to invade Iraq. It's his fault too. Iraq may not have Saddam in power, but without Saddam, they don't have security. Period. With a democracy, it's just a free for all, and that's all it's going to be. Democracy may look nice on the news, but we need dictators in the middle east to secure order. It sounds shitty, but without dictators there, you have the situation we have now.

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

There's been a recent debate going on lately, most famously between David Brooks & Paul Krugman of the NYT, on Reagan & race. Recently, Krugman unleashed this:

 

Innocent mistakes

 

So there’s a campaign on to exonerate Ronald Reagan from the charge that he deliberately made use of Nixon’s Southern strategy. When he went to Philadelphia, Mississippi, in 1980, the town where the civil rights workers had been murdered, and declared that “I believe in states’ rights,” he didn’t mean to signal support for white racists. It was all just an innocent mistake.

 

Indeed, you do really have to feel sorry for Reagan. He just kept making those innocent mistakes.

 

When he went on about the welfare queen driving her Cadillac, and kept repeating the story years after it had been debunked, some people thought he was engaging in race-baiting. But it was all just an innocent mistake.

 

When, in 1976, he talked about working people angry about the “strapping young buck” using food stamps to buy T-bone steaks at the grocery store, he didn’t mean to play into racial hostility. True, as the New York Times reported,

 

The ex-Governor has used the grocery-line illustration before, but in states like New Hampshire where there is scant black population, he has never used the expression “young buck,” which, to whites in the South, generally denotes a large black man.

 

But the appearance that Reagan was playing to Southern prejudice was just an innocent mistake.

 

Similarly, when Reagan declared in 1980 that the Voting Rights Act had been “humiliating to the South,” he didn’t mean to signal sympathy with segregationists. It was all an innocent mistake.

 

In 1982, when Reagan intervened on the side of Bob Jones University, which was on the verge of losing its tax-exempt status because of its ban on interracial dating, he had no idea that the issue was so racially charged. It was all an innocent mistake.

 

And the next year, when Reagan fired three members of the Civil Rights Commission, it wasn’t intended as a gesture of support to Southern whites. It was all an innocent mistake.

 

Poor Reagan. He just kept on making those innocent mistakes, again and again and again.

 

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/11/1...ocent-mistakes/

[Jingus 0]

Krugman has a couple of really good points there. So why did he bury them in between several weak ones?

 

When he went to Philadelphia, Mississippi, in 1980, the town where the civil rights workers had been murdered, and declared that “I believe in states’ rights,” he didn’t mean to signal support for white racists. It was all just an innocent mistake.

Politicians are shifty chameleons who tell their audience what they want to hear, period. You're facing a bunch of paranoid rednecks? Tell 'em you don't cotton to the guvment tresspassin on they property. It's a standard political speech tactic, and I don't see how it indicates anything other than Reagan just being an average suit.

 

When he went on about the welfare queen driving her Cadillac, and kept repeating the story years after it had been debunked, some people thought he was engaging in race-baiting.

Considering what we know about Reagan's memory, or almost complete lack thereof, so what if it was debunked? Dude probably couldn't remember his own name on some days. That's being senile, not racist. Especially since he never specified that the woman was supposed to be black, did he?

 

When, in 1976, he talked about working people angry about the “strapping young buck” using food stamps to buy T-bone steaks at the grocery store, he didn’t mean to play into racial hostility. True, as the New York Times reported, the ex-Governor has used the grocery-line illustration before, but in states like New Hampshire where there is scant black population, he has never used the expression “young buck,” which, to whites in the South, generally denotes a large black man.

Firstly, provide some sources that he did use the phrase in the South but not in the North. Secondly, it's bullshit anyway, I've lived in the South my whole life and heard a whole rainbow of interesting denigrative terms for black people, but "young buck" means nothing to me in racial terms except for being that one rapper's name.

 

And the next year, when Reagan fired three members of the Civil Rights Commission, it wasn’t intended as a gesture of support to Southern whites. It was all an innocent mistake.

What were they fired for? More backstory needs to be provided here. As it stands, it sounds kinda like insisting that a particular cop is racist because he's arrested three black guys.

 

Similarly, when Reagan declared in 1980 that the Voting Rights Act had been “humiliating to the South,” he didn’t mean to signal sympathy with segregationists. It was all an innocent mistake.

 

In 1982, when Reagan intervened on the side of Bob Jones University, which was on the verge of losing its tax-exempt status because of its ban on interracial dating, he had no idea that the issue was so racially charged. It was all an innocent mistake.

See, THOSE are excellent, hard-to-defend points which really do make the former Prez look like the type of man to say "darkie" and mean it. They shouldn't be barely covered in just two sentences and buried near but not at the bottom of the story, the blind spot of journalism which many people tend to skip.

[Jorge Gorgeous 0]

Krugman has a couple of really good points there. So why did he bury them in between several weak ones?

 

When he went to Philadelphia, Mississippi, in 1980, the town where the civil rights workers had been murdered, and declared that “I believe in states’ rights,” he didn’t mean to signal support for white racists. It was all just an innocent mistake.

Politicians are shifty chameleons who tell their audience what they want to hear, period. You're facing a bunch of paranoid rednecks? Tell 'em you don't cotton to the guvment tresspassin on they property. It's a standard political speech tactic, and I don't see how it indicates anything other than Reagan just being an average suit.

 

When he went on about the welfare queen driving her Cadillac, and kept repeating the story years after it had been debunked, some people thought he was engaging in race-baiting.

Considering what we know about Reagan's memory, or almost complete lack thereof, so what if it was debunked? Dude probably couldn't remember his own name on some days. That's being senile, not racist. Especially since he never specified that the woman was supposed to be black, did he?

 

When, in 1976, he talked about working people angry about the “strapping young buck” using food stamps to buy T-bone steaks at the grocery store, he didn’t mean to play into racial hostility. True, as the New York Times reported, the ex-Governor has used the grocery-line illustration before, but in states like New Hampshire where there is scant black population, he has never used the expression “young buck,” which, to whites in the South, generally denotes a large black man.

Firstly, provide some sources that he did use the phrase in the South but not in the North. Secondly, it's bullshit anyway, I've lived in the South my whole life and heard a whole rainbow of interesting denigrative terms for black people, but "young buck" means nothing to me in racial terms except for being that one rapper's name.

 

And the next year, when Reagan fired three members of the Civil Rights Commission, it wasn’t intended as a gesture of support to Southern whites. It was all an innocent mistake.

What were they fired for? More backstory needs to be provided here. As it stands, it sounds kinda like insisting that a particular cop is racist because he's arrested three black guys.

 

Similarly, when Reagan declared in 1980 that the Voting Rights Act had been “humiliating to the South,” he didn’t mean to signal sympathy with segregationists. It was all an innocent mistake.

 

In 1982, when Reagan intervened on the side of Bob Jones University, which was on the verge of losing its tax-exempt status because of its ban on interracial dating, he had no idea that the issue was so racially charged. It was all an innocent mistake.

See, THOSE are excellent, hard-to-defend points which really do make the former Prez look like the type of man to say "darkie" and mean it. They shouldn't be barely covered in just two sentences and buried near but not at the bottom of the story, the blind spot of journalism which many people tend to skip.

 

 

Yeah... whether or not you've heard it "buck" is (or at least was) a term used to describe a strapping young black man. It was a typecast in Hollywood for a long time. I'm sure its fallen into disuse, but Reagan was old as fuck. Also, don't be so quick to attribute the Cadillac Queen thing to Reagan being senile, this wasn't 1995 Ronald Reagan, it was 1980 Road to the Presidency Reagan.

 

[gWIL 0]

LBJ, Nixon, Buchanon, Hoover, and Bush were bad Presidents.

 

Okay, I have to take issue with LBJ being considered by anyone as being one of the worst presidents ever, when history suggests quite the opposite. The man did more for minorities and the poor than any other president, hell than any other person. Of course there are the afore mentioned civil rights acts, but he did much more than just that. He was responsible for Job Corps, Head Start programs, finally started providing federal funding to public education, created Medicare and Medicaid, increased safety standards in the regulation of tobacco, automobiles, and meat. Not to mention the War on Poverty, like it or not, did more to cut the poverty levels than any other government program, before or since. The man also did more for NASA, both in office and in congress. NASA is in some way responsible for most of the major technological breakthroughs in the last few decades, so you can thank LBJ for that too. Was Vietnam a bad war? Of course, but it should not be the legacy that defines LBJ.

[snuffbox 0]

Sorry. Escalting an absoutely pointless war that will eventually kill over 50,000 Americans and scar at least two consecutive generations is THE defining moment of his Presidency no matter how you care to spin it.

 

And that Great Society stuff isn't all you crack it up to be. Johnson, in continuing to expand his own 'credibility gap,' refused to acknowledge the actual costs of Vietnam and, in doing so, refused to raise taxes to pay for all his initiatives. Sound familiar? In serious debt is not a good place for a nation to be.

[EricMM 0]

At least its arguable; Bush, not so much.

[snuffbox 0]

Neither is arguable. You either don't mind huge debts and needless wars, or you do. There can be no middle ground just because Johnson was a Democrat.

 

As I have already mentioned, though, LBJ was a brilliant legislator and was able to turn the tide of America post-11/63 into major civil rights legislation. For that he will end up above Bush Jr who wasn't able to do anything of actual merit.

[EricMM 0]

Well, there you go.

 

Despite any objections, the sum total of a President's term would have to include all of their actions.

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

Wilson, in my opinion, is definitely one of the absolute worst presidents in history. Just look at the guy's performance at the Treaty of Versailles talks. Unwavering on the matters of the League of Nations, he pretty much single handedly fucked over all of Europe for the next 60 years.

 

How did Wilson "fuck over" Europe? The other Allies got what THEY wanted. Basically none of what Wilson wanted got put in place. It seems like Britain, France, & Italy would be more responsible for "fucking over all of Europe" than Wilson.

 

And then again, after he refused to send troops and help to Russia while the Bolsheviks were attacking, even though he promised that the world would be safe for democracy. Fuck Wilson.

 

Wilson did send American troops to aid the Whites in the Russian Civil War. US troops even engaged Red forces at times.

[At Home 0]

Wilson, in my opinion, is definitely one of the absolute worst presidents in history. Just look at the guy's performance at the Treaty of Versailles talks. Unwavering on the matters of the League of Nations, he pretty much single handedly fucked over all of Europe for the next 60 years.

 

How did Wilson "fuck over" Europe? The other Allies got what THEY wanted. Basically none of what Wilson wanted got put in place. It seems like Britain, France, & Italy would be more responsible for "fucking over all of Europe" than Wilson.

 

And then again, after he refused to send troops and help to Russia while the Bolsheviks were attacking, even though he promised that the world would be safe for democracy. Fuck Wilson.

 

Wilson did send American troops to aid the Whites in the Russian Civil War. US troops even engaged Red forces at times.

 

That's the problem, the other Allies DID get what they wanted- for products see: Nazi Germany. Wilson was willing to compromise too much on the League, and too unwilling to actually understand the situation around him. Self-determination has been causing problems to this day. Dumb, dumb, dumb thing to expect. Remember, Wilson just thought up The Fourteen Points without consulting or any congressional action. Speaking of congressional action, Wilson didn't bring a single Republican to Versailles. The road to hell is paved with good intentions. Wilson's idealistic, plainly stupid, Fourteen Points caused wreck and ruin to Europe. After all, he was a hero to Europe, but he abused that power to try and get the League, which was unconstitutional in the first place. He should've truly made the world safe for democracy as he planned to do, and consider Europe's dynamic as a whole. Too bad, because he was in a bubble in the truest sense of the word. The French representative to the Versailles talks even said "talking to Wilson is like talking to a man who thinks they're Jesus Christ." It's the fucking League, I can't stress that enough. Instead of making nice-nice with Germany, he took it up the ass from the Allies who wanted to completely and totally obliterate Germany, literally. They wanted to wipe Germany from the maps to never have to deal with them again.

 

Russian Civil War aid: too little, too late. The Whites never stood a chance. They were unorganized, period. I'm talking about the Bolshevik Revolution. Wilson refused to intervene on personal beliefs; for products see: the USSR. Should Wilson or the guy in power (I fucking forget his name, this is a little embarrassing) been stronger, would the USSR have ever existed? We don't know. But going from Tsarism to a Proletariat Dictatorship was a terrible move. Should've gone from Tsarism to a Constitutional Monarchy, or probably at the most a republic or democracy. But that's not Wilson's fault, the success of the Bolshevik Revolution(s) probably is. You gotta understand the role that personalities played post-WWI.

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

I think you mean Kerensky.

 

So you're saying Wilson screwed Europe by not pushing his idealistic policies forcefully enough (France, Britain, & Italy got what they wanted). Then you turn around and say Wilson's 14 Points "caused wreck & ruin to Europe" when only 4 of the 14 were actually passed. So who screwed Europe, Wilson or the other Allies (who wanted to buttrape Germany)?

 

Secondly, I'm not sure Wilson intervening in Russia would have been a terribly bright move. Attempts by foreign powers to prop up unpopular government (like the Russian Provisional Government) have generally been unsuccessful, not to mention morally questionable (such as propping up Diem and then a series of other crappy governments in South Vietnam).

[Nightwing 0]

No, you're wrong. The 14 Points never really made it off the table. Secret Treaties, War Reparations, War Guilt... point to point, they were either watered down into nothing or just completely ignored. Wilson's problem was not that he ruined Europe: Europe did that to itself, and did so with a smile. His biggest problem was that he wasn't prepared for the negotiations at all. That's all I can fault him with (Which, in itself, is a pretty big fault). But give the devils their due: The people who fucked German up was not Wilson, but the French, the Italians, and the British. They are the ones who wanted to carve chunks out of people.

 

And the Russian Civil War? You can't blame that on him. Russia was going down the tubes long before that. Trying to keep the Romanovs in power would have required a massive effort, one much larger than we could summon up at the time. The blame for the Bolshis lies solely on the Russian Monarchy itself for having absolutely inept monarchy and military. If he had even stopped it then, it would still come up later. There was no way that monarchy was going to survive after that war, with the country the way that it was.

[At Home 0]

No, you're wrong. The 14 Points never really made it off the table. Secret Treaties, War Reparations, War Guilt... point to point, they were either watered down into nothing or just completely ignored. Wilson's problem was not that he ruined Europe: Europe did that to itself, and did so with a smile. His biggest problem was that he wasn't prepared for the negotiations at all. That's all I can fault him with (Which, in itself, is a pretty big fault). But give the devils their due: The people who fucked German up was not Wilson, but the French, the Italians, and the British. They are the ones who wanted to carve chunks out of people.

 

And the Russian Civil War? You can't blame that on him. Russia was going down the tubes long before that. Trying to keep the Romanovs in power would have required a massive effort, one much larger than we could summon up at the time. The blame for the Bolshis lies solely on the Russian Monarchy itself for having absolutely inept monarchy and military. If he had even stopped it then, it would still come up later. There was no way that monarchy was going to survive after that war, with the country the way that it was.

 

Bullshit, are you going to tell me that the numerous territorial conflicts resulting from the Treaty of Versailles talks weren't a DIRECT RESULT OF WILSON'S SELF-DETERMINATION POLICY? If you are, that is just plain wrong. Think about all the little rump states (that is, states carved out of an area with a heavy population of a given ethnicity) in which they are killing each other today. Huge problems because of self-determination. Huge.

 

I'm blaming the success of the Bolshevik Revolutions on Wilson. He should've intervened to "make the world safe for democracy," which includes fighting communism. Period. With a legitimate force from Wilson, the Bolsheviks could've been crushed, Lenin would've been executed, no Stalin, none of those USSR guys. Are you going to disagree with that? I can't say what would've happened after that, but I can say, without hesitation, that successful Wilsonian intervention would have forever altered the shape of Russia. The Provisional Government was set up by the Duma, by the way.

 

Yes, Kerensky, thank you.

 

I'm saying that Wilson was the wrong man for the job. It was a joint effort in fucking up Europe. Some of the Allies wanted to destroy Germany, others were moderate, and Wilson wanted his Fourteen Points. Instead of focusing on a realistic future for Europe, Willy turned a blind eye to the shenanegans of the Allies in order to focus on pushing his points. Is anyone going to disagree that the Fourteen Points were complete unmitigated idealistic garbage? Read them carefully. Ex: secret treaties. How are you going to know that they exist if they're secret? Ex2: Freedom of the seas. Britain said no flat-out. They were a naval power for hundreds of years. Weren't going to let that happen. Ex3: Self-determination. Creating small rump states caused more problems than keeping them under their original rule, guaranteed, especially with the case of Yugoslavia and Czechoslovakia, where there was and is violence there. It goes on and on. But I digress. Willy should have poo-pooed most of the Anti-German legislation (war reparations being the worst, seeing as how all the Allied owed money to the US in huge sums, and eventually created the Great (Worldwide) Depression, huge inflation in Germany, and the Dawes Plan--none of those things being good.). He has a pretty stable leverage point, but he fucked it up. Too many woulda, coulda, shoulda's in hindsight that ultimately led to European chaos.

 

Oh, also, don't forget that ITALY WASN'T EVEN THERE. They left because they entered the war on the side of the Allies on false pretenses of territorial gains, but once they realized they weren't going to get what they want, they left.

[Nightwing 0]

Bullshit, are you going to tell me that the numerous territorial conflicts resulting from the Treaty of Versailles talks weren't a DIRECT RESULT OF WILSON'S SELF-DETERMINATION POLICY? If you are, that is just plain wrong. Think about all the little rump states (that is, states carved out of an area with a heavy population of a given ethnicity) in which they are killing each other today. Huge problems because of self-determination. Huge.

 

Numerous little territorial conflicts? There was the Soviet-Polish War, and that's about the only real conflict. But even if there were, it doesn't mean that it wasn't right. The Polish needed to have a country. They were a huge ethnic group that was not at all represented by their governments. It would have only caused future problems to keep them under both Germany and Russia (Especially when you consider that Russia went Soviet, like you've been saying). Countries like Poland and Czechoslovakia did absolutely fine, and while Yugoslavia had problems, it would have only been worse. You want to see a prime example of not doing this? Iraq, where you have three different groups trying to live as one.

 

The only big problem I see in the sectioning was Yugoslavia, and that's only because they didn't take it far enough. But keeping it in the Hapsburg Empire wouldn't have done anything but create more and more racial tension that sparked the War itself. You can't tell me that you honestly think keeping the status quo would have somehow righted things; Europe was already screwed beyond belief due to aging and decrepit Empires with unhappy ethnic groups within them. Keeping things the same would only cause something worse.

 

I'm blaming the success of the Bolshevik Revolutions on Wilson. He should've intervened to "make the world safe for democracy," which includes fighting communism. Period. With a legitimate force from Wilson, the Bolsheviks could've been crushed, Lenin would've been executed, no Stalin, none of those USSR guys. Are you going to disagree with that? I can't say what would've happened after that, but I can say, without hesitation, that successful Wilsonian intervention would have forever altered the shape of Russia. The Provisional Government was set up by the Duma, by the way.

 

I would disagree. Communist revolution was inevitable. Putting it off a few years wouldn't help much, and frankly it would take a lot larger effort than you seem to think. I'll note that you put the qualifier 'successful', and that there was no assurances of any sort of 'success': Stopping one revolution won't prevent one in the future, and the logistics behind trying to keep Russia under control are mind-boggling, even moreso for that time period.

 

The fact of the matter is that the Russian monarchy had been going down the tubes long before then. Any sort of intervention would have only delayed an inevitable revolution from the people. Unless you believe that Wilson was going to install his own government (Which would, almost assuredly, move from a democracy to a dictatorship), I don't see how him intervening would do anything useful. I can't even think of a White Russian leader that would be strong enough to keep Russia under control if we assume that the Tsar was gone.

 

I'm saying that Wilson was the wrong man for the job. It was a joint effort in fucking up Europe. Some of the Allies wanted to destroy Germany, others were moderate, and Wilson wanted his Fourteen Points. Instead of focusing on a realistic future for Europe, Willy turned a blind eye to the shenanegans of the Allies in order to focus on pushing his points. Is anyone going to disagree that the Fourteen Points were complete unmitigated idealistic garbage? Read them carefully. Ex: secret treaties. How are you going to know that they exist if they're secret? Ex2: Freedom of the seas. Britain said no flat-out. They were a naval power for hundreds of years. Weren't going to let that happen. Ex3: Self-determination. Creating small rump states caused more problems than keeping them under their original rule, guaranteed, especially with the case of Yugoslavia and Czechoslovakia, where there was and is violence there. It goes on and on. But I digress. Willy should have poo-pooed most of the Anti-German legislation (war reparations being the worst, seeing as how all the Allied owed money to the US in huge sums, and eventually created the Great (Worldwide) Depression, huge inflation in Germany, and the Dawes Plan--none of those things being good.). He has a pretty stable leverage point, but he fucked it up. Too many woulda, coulda, shoulda's in hindsight that ultimately led to European chaos.

 

Those are pretty pathetic arguments against the 14 Points.

 

Ex 1: Secret Treaties. Your argument is irrelevant, because he's right. Convoluted secret assistance treaties were part of the problem at the time. Even if they were secret, Britain and France fought against putting that point into the treaty. If they were just going to have secret treaties anyways (Because they're secret, like you point out), why even make a point of keeping it out? Probably because Britain and France would have upheld it because it's part of a treaty.

 

Ex 2: Freedom of the Seas. Again, it's a fine concept. Britain disagreeing about it is not an argument against it, though. It only further proves that it was not Wilson who screwed things over, but the Europeans themselves.

 

Ex 3: Self-Determination. I'll point out again that the entire cause of World War I was due to states like this not existing and the ethnic tensions between the conquered peoples and the ruling people. While there was violence in these states (Violence with the Czechs, though? I don't remember that. They were a remarkably stable government...), it wasn't that that fucked up Europe. Leaving them within a dying Austrian Empire wouldn't have done any better and would have only caused to spark the same violence over and over, especially with . The entire idea behind creating these states was to prevent such problems, and largely it worked. The biggest problem state was still Yugoslavia, but places like Poland and Czechoslovakia were successes. I hope you're not going to honestly argue that keeping these states within these Empires would have helped things when it caused the problems we are talking about, and continued to cause problems in places like the USSR (In particular, the Ukraine).

 

The problem with Wilson is not the 14 Points. Yes, they were a little bit idealistic, but they were along the right track: Free Trade, Free Seas, No Punishments, Forum for World Government. The problem was that he was completely unprepared for a Europe that didn't want to change its own bad habits. Wilson deserves some blame, but the vast majority of the blame should be put on Britain and France. It wasn't a joint effort, it was Wilson getting bitched down by the other powers. I'll agree that's a fault, but I refuse to say that it was his fault that Europe was fucked up. What caused later conflicts were things that Wilson specifically argued against, like War Guilt, Reparations, and Military Sanctions. Those were things that were vigorously put forth by European powers, and Wilson was unprepared to see countries that had caused such a war with such things before go so gladly go right back into it.

 

Wilson had good intentions, but lacked the ability to put those intentions to work. The blame for all the post-Great War fuck-ups lies on Britain and France, especially when it comes to screw-ups like the partitioning the Ottoman Empire.

 

Oh, also, don't forget that ITALY WASN'T EVEN THERE. They left because they entered the war on the side of the Allies on false pretenses of territorial gains, but once they realized they weren't going to get what they want, they left.

 

Well, that's wrong, and writing it in caps doesn't make it any truer. They left, but they came back to re-sign. They are signatories, they were they for a while, and their presence was not helpful, especially since they were there simply to grab land.

[Lil' Bitch 0]

Jimmy Carter is by far the worst modern president. His foreign policy was terrible. He was a complete failure in dealing with the Soviet nuclear threat as well as the Iran hostage crisis, he supported Philippine dictator Fernando Marcos, and he GAVE AWAY the Panama Canal! On domestic side, he created the economic phenomenom known as "Stagflation", and created a "crisis of confidence" within the minds of the American public.

[EricMM 0]

Ain't as bad as Bush...