<P> James T. Patterson has reiterated this argument, though he observes that this increased tension can be accounted for not just from a political perspective, but from an economic one too . Patterson has argued that the tension between the federal and state governments at least partly also resulted from the economic strain under which the states had been put by the federal government's various policies and agencies . Some states were either simply unable to cope with the federal government's demand and thus refused to work with them, or admonished the economic restraints and actively decided to sabotage federal policies . This was demonstrated, Patterson has noted, with the handling of federal relief money by Ohio governor, Martin L. Davey . The case in Ohio became so detrimental to the federal government that Harry Hopkins, supervisor of the Federal Emergency Relief Administration, had to federalize Ohio relief . Although this argument differs somewhat from Schlesinger's, the source of federal - state tension remained the growth of the federal government . As Patterson has asserted, "though the record of the FERA was remarkably good--almost revolutionary--in these respects it was inevitable, given the financial requirements imposed on deficit - ridden states, that friction would develop between governors and federal officials". </P> <P> In this dispute it can be inferred that Katznelson and Schlesinger and Patterson have only disagreed on their inference of the historical evidence . While both parties have agreed that the federal government expanded and even that states had a degree of control over the allocation of federal funds, they have disputed the consequences of these claims . Katznelson has asserted that it created mutual acquiescence between the levels of government, while Schlesinger and Patterson have suggested that it provoked contempt for the state governments on the part of the federal government and vice versa, thus exacerbating their relations . In short, irrespective of the interpretation this era marked an important time in the historiography of federalism and also nevertheless provided some narrative on the legacy of federal - state relations . </P> <P> Worldwide, the Great Depression had the most profound impact in the German Reich and the United States . In both countries the pressure to reform and the perception of the economic crisis were strikingly similar . When Hitler came to power he was faced with exactly the same task that faced Roosevelt, overcoming mass unemployment and the global Depression . The political responses to the crises were essentially different: while American democracy remained strong, Germany replaced democracy with fascism, a Nazi dictatorship . </P> <P> The initial perception of the New Deal was mixed . On the one hand, the eyes of the world were upon the United States because many democrats in Europe and the United States saw in Roosevelt _́ s reform program a positive counterweight to the seductive powers of the two great alternative systems, communism and fascism . As the historian Isaiah Berlin wrote in 1955: "The only light in the darkness was the administration of Mr. Roosevelt and the New Deal in the United States". </P>

One major result of the new deal was that it