Along with Truman... Killed by the Western Allies. Japanese civilian dead: 2 million5 Hiroshima: about 138,890 according to Gilbert. 5 Nagasaki: about 48,857according to Gilbert.5 Tokyo bombings: "On May 24, more than four hundred American bombers dropped 3,646 tons of bombs on central Tokyo, and on the industrial areas in the south of the city. More than a thousand Japanese were killed."5 Tokyo, March 1945: "83,793 Japanese civilians killed. That was the official minimum death toll; later, 130,000 deaths were 'confirmed' by the Japanese authorities." 5 Nagoya, Osaka, Kobe, Yokohama, Kawasaki March-May 1945: "more than a quarter of a million"5 German civilians killed by bombing In total about 800,000 according to Gilbert. 12 Hamburg, July 1943: 42,000 5 Dresden, February 1945: "39,773 'officially identified dead' were found in the city and registered, most of them burned to death. At least 20,000 more bodies were buried beneath ruins, or incinerated beyond recognition, even as bodies. 5 http://www.holocaust-history.org/~rjg/deaths.shtml
Did ja see He added "With Truman" what a dip**** I dont think FDR Killed anyone myself, maybe he ran over someone drunk in his wheel chair and Truman was pushin him?
The fire bombing of Tokyo alone killed over 400,000. I'd go with 'millions of dead civilians'. And that's fine. We could argue the roots of that war endlessly, but the fact remains that the Japanese, German and Italian civilians were quite okay with going to war and with the goodies that flowed their way when things were going well. So **** 'em. If that's what it took to get their surrender, then that's what it took. No tears. WE also engineered famines in Japan and Germany as tools of war. And we interdicted vaccine and medical supplies and precursor ingredients. That's total war. It was waged on us, we waged it back. We did it better than they did. Yay us. But let's not forget that we got down in the trenches. And twisted the knife when it was necessary.
Agreed Kanto, That was a World War instigated by those who wound up suffering the most. Comparing FDR to Chavez is asinine and just out right Idiotic.
Nah, just pointing out that "great men" like FDR and Lincoln, etc., are men who have to be willing to kill innocent old ladies and children to attain their goals--and those things happened on their watch. History is written by the victors. We lack historical perspective to see whether Chavez is remembered as the next Simon Bolivar or something much lesser.
The worst thing FDR did had nothing to do with the enemies civilians. It was giving half of the European world to uncle Joe. That caused truly innocent people to be slaughtered. The people that allowed tojo, Hitler, and Mussolini into power can't be called innocent, even though no doubt some were.
Can it be that some here are actually defending Chavez, or is it just an exercise in antagonist behavior? Human Rights Watch even says "the concentration of power under under President Hugo Chavez has taken a heavy toll on human rights in Venezuala". They are highly critical of Chavez for undermining the courts, the media, organized labor, and impeding human rights and civil society. Yes, I know, "it could be worse". There is always someone or something worse. It could be raining. http://www.hrw.org/americas/venezuela http://www.hrw.org/reports/2008/09/18/decade-under-ch-vez
Nah, it's just when I see that the ultra-conservative SF posters vehemently hate something, I have to think it has a few redeeming qualities. Did a little digging, there are definitely two sides to the story and a lot of people are a lot better off due to Chavez. Did some lose a lot of stuff? Yep. Was that right? Who is to say? We're talking property seizures and reordering society. Toes will be stepped on. We can judge it by the end result which will either be something for us all to admire or a total cluster.
Mid, while you are correct that 'great men' in history have tended to need to know when and how to break the eggs to make the omelet, there is a moral relativist cliff that should be avoided at all costs. Was FDR's willingness to accept civilian death the 'same' as Hitler's? Stalin's? Mao's? Pol Pot's? I would argue 'no' on a number of different levels. Likewise with Hugo. I think there are a number of places where he has shown himself to be a small man, morally and that those shortcomings are almost surely going to put him into the category of banana republic dictator before his ruthlessness somehow propels him to lasting importance. But, you're correct, we don't know yet. Still hope he dies, slowly, in pain and humiliation. Don't like the guy.
No one is defending the biggest prick in the Western Hemisphere Hugo Chavez. But he still may have a path to heaven, right?
I let him out to play, but he's so out there, he comes up with stuff that boggles the imagination, and not in a good way. Had to put him back where he normally resides.