[jdewerd]

Oh, he only busted the Great Depression, won WWII, built half of the infrastructure that we keep kicking the expiration date on, and negotiated 80% of the beneficial fine print in your employment contract. Don't you think he could have done a bit more?

My list would be: 1. FDR, 2. Carter, 3. Teddy. Carter because he sacrificed his career to fix inflation (Republican attempts to rewrite history notwithstanding), and Teddy because he wasn't merely an excellent man with excellent politics, but also because whenever present-day Republicans try to claim the man without claiming his politics I can turn it into a teachable moment, and putting him on a list with the other two is the perfect bait.

[bluGill]

He didn't end the depression. it clearly continued right to wwii. You can dabate how things might have been if he had been allowed all his ideas (some of which were as undemocratic as what trump wants)

[MerManMaid]

He steered us to join the war which did end the depression.

Whether it be the new deal or non-isolationist policy, his direction led us out of the great depression which started before his presidency and ended before he died.

[brailsafe]

> won WWII

or so Hollywood would have us believe

[kridsdale1]

Sure, the parts Stalin didn’t win.

[fl7305]

Historical note: Stalin and Hitler agreed to start WW2 by invading Poland in September 1939.

So Stalin may have played a part in ending WW2, but don't forget his part in starting it.

[sanderjd]

FDR, Stalin, and Churchill all won that war. History is super messy!

[brailsafe]

Team America to the rescue! But it does seem like without FDR it would have been won for the allies anyway.

[sanderjd]

I think this kind of counterfactual is pretty impossible to do.

Do you mean that it would have been won without any US involvement? Or do you mean the US involvement would have proceeded similarly with a different president?

[brailsafe]

From my cursory sense of things it seems like both are probably true. The U.S with FDR obviously contributed to it ending when it did, but so did other countries who were there earlier and sacrificed more. The U.S seems like more of a winner in the sense that they sacrificed relatively little while getting the most out of it, but I don't know if that's a good use of the term "won" in the context of a world war.

[gschizas]

So did Hitler. I mean, he did end up killing Hitler, that's gotta count for something!

[cenamus]

*yet

[rmbyrro]

> Stalin didn’t win

...even backed by crucial US supplies

[anovikov]

Infrastructure was mostly built in Eisenhower's era, not FDR's. Helping Soviets during WWII was a major mistake and it can be personally attributed to FDR - a radical leftist - himself. Many people around him advised him of the dangers of helping Commies.

U.S. should have ignored Soviet-German war. Then finish Commies with nukes.

[roenxi]

> Then finish Commies with nukes.

If they'd done that they'd be down in history as worse than the worst of communism. It was bad enough that they dropped 2 on the Japanese which scores American civilisation a questionable footnote in the history books. "Only people to use a weapon this terrible".

The problem with unprincipled aggression is that, sooner or later, other people match it. The US ended up doing much better by defeating the communists without directly fighting them - one of the few wars the US unambiguously won and why people don't want to learn that lesson is one of the great mysteries. Victories through overwhelming prosperity are both decisive and comfortable.

[anovikov]

But that is the point! Get rid of everyone who wasn't friendly/under control, who could match it. Thus achieving worldwide democracy for all nations who could support it immediately, and unlimited time to get everyone who can't, prepared (with potentially unlimited violence applied to force them to). Achieve a sustainable hegemony.