Your political philosophy is noted. I do not run from facts, evidence and data so I agree with your personal thinking.
What I do not agree with is the singularity and un-nuanced view of the 1930s. Your inclusion of the laughing smilie is evident, in my view, of the noted tendency to react to others' ideas with mockery and sarcasm. In my opinion it does not contribute to skillful communication or collaborative problem-solving. I think people engage in sarcastic emotions because of the sarcasm they encountered as children. Fully functional adults seldom use such tactics. At least whenever I do it, I try to be accountable for my own immaturity and wrong-headedness. But's that just me.
Roosevelt was an elite who realized the day to day conditions of the American working man. And he governed accordingly, such that the U.S. conservative military (plus Wall Street banksters) were involved in a plot/coup to overthrow FDR.
Roosevelt went back to the "economic royalists" with his hat in his hand when he soon discovered that a war could only be waged with the help of wealthy financiers to turn the tide against families like the Bushes and other U.S. supported multi-nationals who were unabashedly supporting Hitler in the 1930s.
Such ideological frameworks like A causes B and leads to C are bankrupt today. They might have held sway in the 19th century but are largely dysfunctional today.
Today's global culture presents us with a web of interlocking ideas that do not present themselves as some Newtonian game of billiards.
Influence and causation are no longer as cut and dried as you present. The effect of the coming war was only one factor.
Tyrannical systems tend to denounce nuance and relativity.
That is why, say, Adolf Hitler's brownshirts were intolerant of different ideas. It goes with the territory.
I react that way because the "other's ideas" do not reflect any known reality.
