Quote (Black XistenZ @ Apr 6 2021 09:01pm)
Fine, you are correct to point out that the coincidence between FDR's tenure and the end of the Great Depression and the victory in WW2 is not definitive proof for his policies or leadership being the reason. It is certainly possible to imagine a scenario in which a well-timed presidency reaps the praise for larger developments which were inevitable irrespective from his actions. But if you want to make this claim to the truth being the opposite of the straightforward, then the burden of proof is on you, not me.
It is undeniable that the U.S. were in a much better place, economically, militarily and geostrategically, in 1945 than they were in 1933. After such a long presidency, and considering how active and politically dominant FDR was, it seems exceedingly unlikely that he simply "lucked" into all of this in spite of ineffectual or even harmful policies. In particular, you really need to provide cogent arguments as to why a continuation of the laissez-faire policies of his predecessors, which had been unable to make any progress toward overcoming the Great Depression for several years when FDR took over, would miraculously have turned the economic tide in 1933 or shortly thereafter. (Which is the implication of your claim that his New Deal policies worsened and lengthened the depression.) Moreover, FDR-style Keynesian economic policies were used to great effect all around the world for decades; decades which saw the West reach unprecedented growth of the standard of living and economic equality.
Likewise, one can certainly argue that the course and the outcome of the war would have been roughly the same with any president at the helm, but it's still striking how well the U.S. got through the war: arms support for the UK and the Soviets allowed the U.S. to see the Axis powers defeated with a comparatively very low American death toll while simultaneously securing a strong position in Western Europe for the coming post-war conflict.
Whether or not his specific policy proposals worked is a matter of intense debate. In many cases, it probably bordered on over regulation. That said, Keynesian economics were obviously a huge step forward, and his leadership during the war was instrumental. He revolutionized American politics, both good and bad, and manoeuvred the United States through the 2nd World War to America's overwhelming benefit.
I disagree with a lot that he did, but it's obvious that he is 3rd. Lincoln and Washington are first and second, respectively.