Absolutely false. The Nazis surrendered unconditionally less than one month after the end of FDR's presidency. Berlin fell just a few days after the end of FDR's term.
Hate to break it to you, but the Nazis weren't the only AXIS power we were fighting in WWII. The Japanese didn't surrender until Truman dropped the bombs. After FDr was dead and buried.
I understand that your theories would lead you to believe that his approach would not have worked. But in fact it did. Large portions of the country didn't have electricity before and now they do.
Don't know much about The REA or those times do ya? Those areas DID have electricity, and it was speading. But it wasn't centralized (a big word, much sought after back then, the politicians loved it like they love "green" now - sometime we'll have to discuss how Stalin, with help from GE, used that to rule Russia). The thing was, their electricity was self generated (typically by wind turbine, though there was some small hydro). They used DC (12/24/26 volt appliances). The REA made them give that up - for life.
America was electrifying on it's own already. The REA helped to centralize that and put it under central control. A good deal for the farmers, because they got a wire dropped to them and juice for years for free. Their children however, became slaves to the utility companies and no longer knew how to generate their own.
We had widespread famine, here in the United States, in the early 30s. Estimates are that over 1 million Americans starved to death in that period. We lost roughly 30% of our entire GDP in just three years. How you can not consider that a second world country in a spiral totally baffles me.
You really need to took into some history courses. Never heard of the Dust Bowl? There's alot of whys and wherefores about the Dust Bowl that might surprise you. Like why the farmers were growing there to begin with, and how the water problem was solved.
The lowest point our GDP hit was the last quarter of 1932. FDR took office in the first quarter of 1933.
As America was on it's way back up. Again, there are citations that his programs helped that recovery, just as there are citations that they slowed that recovery.
Theories are nice and all, but when they consistently fail to align with what happens in reality, they need to be discarded. Were you aware, for example, that even excluding FDR's spectacular results, the economy has grown by 2.78% on average ever since then when we've had Democratic presidents, but only 1.64% when we've had Republican presidents? Almost all Democrats have outperformed almost all Republicans.
That shows a total lack of how the American system of government works. That's like the old rapist nun correlation (Statistics 101), where the rise in rapes matched the increase in new nuns for the same area. It's a false correlation. Presidents propose, Congress enacts.
That's fair enough to be sure. Certainly there are some things about FDR that I don't approve of, and certainly his accomplishments can get inflated. But to say that he ruined the country?! That's just ridiculous. There is no president in modern history that has a stronger claim to bigger accomplishments than FDR does.
I disagree with that last. I think Ike did far more for the country than FDR. But I don't think FDR "ruined the country". He changed it, that's for sure. Not all of those changes were good and we're sufferring from some of them today. Some of his changes were good.
He created and enabled the forerunner of the dirty tricks CIA and was all in on that. Was that a good thing?