-
The Book Club Online is the oldest book club on the Internet, begun in 1996, open to everyone. We offer cordial discussions of one book a month, 24/7 and enjoy the company of readers from all over the world. Everyone is welcome.
August Book Club Online
PLEASE POST below if you can join us starting August 1
THOSE ANGRY DAYS by Lynne Olson
Roosevelt, Lindbergh, and America’s Fight Over World War II, 1939-1941
| (http://www.seniorlearn.org/bookclubs/angrydays/angrydayscover.jpg) |
".............the definitive account of the debate over American intervention in World War II—a bitter, sometimes violent clash of personalities and ideas that divided the nation and ultimately determined the fate of the free world. - The New York Times
“In Those Angry Days, journalist-turned-historian Lynne Olson captures [the] period in a fast-moving, highly readable narrative punctuated by high drama. It’s . . . popular history at its most riveting, detailing what the author rightfully characterizes as ‘a brutal, no-holds-barred battle for the soul of the nation.’ It is sure to captivate readers seeking a deeper understanding of how public opinion gradually shifted as America moved from bystander to combatant in the war to preserve democracy.”—Associated Press |
Discussion Leaders: Ella (egibbons28@columbus.rr.com) & Harold (hhullar5@yahoo.com)
-
WELCOME TO EVERYONE
WE HOPE YOU JOIN IN THIS FASCINATING BOOK -
SO MUCH TO DISCUSS
You may know some of the events, some of the people in the book, but there is so much more to learn and, surprisingly, we can apply it all to what is happening today.
We will converse with some of the finest minds of the 20th century, our century, so post a note Our conversation does not start until August, but we would like to know how many will be with us.
-
Here's my funny Lynne Olson story, Ella. I checked in my local library catalog online for Those Angry Days- was surprised and stunned to find that this library right across the Potomac River from the White House - had not a single copy!
Asked around and was surprised to learn that libraries across the country were already carrying the book! This morning I checked again - still, no Angry Days! A few minutes later I noticed a discrepancy on our main SeniorLearn Index page. Olson, in one place, Olsen in another.
I checked the spelling and learned Olson is correct and then checked the Library Catalog again...and sure enough, there was Lynne Olson's new book - with nine holds on it already!
This is a roundabout way of saying, yes, Ella and Harold, I will be happy to learn more about FDR - and why these days were considered "angry."
And remember - spelling does still count - especially at the library! :D
-
It was a just this spring that Lynn Olson’s new book, “Those Angry Days” became the topic of a burst of discussion on our Nonfiction board. The book is a review of the history of the 27 months between September 1939 and December 1941 during which American public opinion was transformed from intense determination not to become involved in any way in the European War that had just broken out between England/France and Germany. At the War’s outbreak America seemed determined to maintain strict neutrality. There was a general feeling of intense distrust of France and particularly of England. How this extreme isolation mindset was transformed during the period and the roles of the U.S. President Roosevelt and the English Prime Minister Winston Churchill in the engineering of this policy transformation is the subject of this book. I am sure that you too will find these events not only interesting but also some of you now in your mid 80’s will recall many of the events discussed in ]the book as thy develop as news.
This book can make a great discussion and all are invited. The Book is widely available in both print and digital editions. Also it should be available in most libraries and at used book stores. In order for this discussion to begin August 1, we will need at least five or six interested people who will read the book and take an active part in the discussion. Those of you who are interested in being a part of this discussion, just make a post here to that effect. Let us see if this discussion can be had.
-
I'm definitely with you. It's a bit of history I've been meaning to read more about, and I know from Troublesome Young Men that she's very readable and makes for a good discussion.
My library has enough holds that I'll probably buy a copy so I won't have to worry about timing.
-
JOANP and PAT - happy to see you will be with us. It is interesting how the public's mindset was changed from an isolationist viewpoint to an European activist one. I recently asked a similar question in our Current Events discussion - how did the American opinion change to an acceptable view of homosexuality in the last 15-20 years.. Our parents and grandparents would never have approved.
How does public opinion change so radically?
-
Count me in. It's a fascinating book. Olson at her very best. And very even-handed in exploring the reasons for the anger. Once I started reading I couldn't put the book down. See you in August.
What a wonderful comparison, Ella. Have we let our parents and grandparents down? Did they let us down, in 1939-41? Will the consequences be as momentous and far-reaching?
I've been reading around about Gettysburg. It is after all the 150th anniversary of the famous battle. I can't help thinking how much effort was made to keep Europe out of America's Civil War. Or look for help, depending on which side one was on. All the world was sucked into Europe's civil wars!
-
Oh, great, JONATHAN, it's been awhile since we have discussed a nonfiction book. I can't answer your questions at all, I know that on one page of this book it mentioned the first World War (in which my father fought in France) and the second World War (in which my husband fought in the Pacific). A bit much for just two generations. All on one page.
And then the next generation fought in Vietnam. Just too much war, too many young lives engaged, dying!
Are you reading a book about European countries and America's Civil War? I don't recall any of them involved in helping, is that correct?
But isn't it interesting that we all date something by wars? And what would historians write about without them?
-
Hi, Ella and Harold. I will take part in this discussion. This book is waiting in my Kindle. I love Lynn Olson. She draws pictures with words.
Sheila
.
-
I'm becoming a bit of a history buff since joining SL and think I would learn a lot from reading this book, so count me in. My life should be settling down a bit by August, with grand kids going back to school, and having less day care children in my in-home day care. Looking forward to an adult discussion. :)
bellaMarie~
-
I'm looking forward to what should be a great discussion!
-
Thank you PatH, Jonathan, Shelia, bellamarie, and horselover for your prompt response. Its looking good a great start August 1st.
-
THANK YOU ALL FOR POSTING.
THIS IS PROMISING TO BE A VERY GOOD DISCUSSION AND HISTORY LESSON FOR ALL OF US!
Now if we could only get some high school students or university students engaged in our conversation. Did you hear David McCullough talking on 60 Minutes last Sunday about the woeful lack of history that our young people have? Several didn't know that there 13 colonies originally and that they were all on the EAST COAST! Sad isn't it? I wonder if they have ever heard of Thomas Jefferson and John Adams and who they were?
Those of you who have grandchildren ask them and let us know! Sadly, I have none.
A couple of sites to explore; one Lynn Olson speaking at Hunter College, Roosevelt Institute
http://www.roosevelthouse.hunter.cuny.edu/events/lynne-olson/
Olson spoke on C-Span but after numerous tries, I could not copy it. Try it youself if you want to hear her.
-
That lack of knowledge is pretty shocking. My oldest grandchild is 4 1/2. I'll ask him when I see him, but somehow I don't think he'll know. ;)
Hi, horselover, it will be good to be in a discussion with you.
Bellamarie, I haven't seen you for a while. I'm glad you're back.
-
Horselover during this pre discussion period, if you are inclined you might comment on your horse activities. One of my nephews is a Dallas area Veterinarian with a specialized Horse practice. He and his wife keep and raise horses on a 50 acre Horse farm where he Practices Horse medicine. Their current horse interest seems to be cutting horses. During this last year their 13 year daughter won significant money prizes at various cutting shows.
-
HELLO HAROLD!
As you, and probably most of you know, JOHN ADAMS AND THOMAS JEFFERSON died on this day in 1826, which was also (if I am not mistaken) the 50th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence. We should remember these two founding fathers and ex-presidents.
Talk about divisiveness! These two men didn't speak to each other for years. They were divided over many issues - Adams wanted a strong federal government, while Jefferson believed the government should defer to states rights.
-
Regarding the John Adams, Thomas Jefferson relationship, they were on competing tickets in the presidential election in 1804. This election turned out to be the closest Presidential race in history. After a tie in the electoral college the issue went to the House of Representatives. After many Ballots the House finally chose Jefferson by a small majority a decision that denied Adams a second term. After this there were many years during which Adams and Jefferson were ignoring each other. However as I remember the history after about 1815 the two thawed, and during their last decade they conducted a regular and now historically significant correspondance. Both died at their homes in Virgina and Massachusetts on the 4th of July 1826
During the last week of June 1826 after some 6 weeks at sea on a sailing ship bound for Liverpool John James Audubon was quite drunk after an afternoon drinking Porter (A strong Beer) when he sudden had a strange vision in which he saw his beloved country, the United States, about to experience some great catastrophe. For him it was a puzzling and alarming experience. A month later after landing at Liverpool, he read in an English Newspaper about the death of the two ex-Presidents at their respective homes on July4th within hours of each other. Audubon was satisfied his experience on the Ship had been a reference to the deaths of the two ex-Presidents.
-
Oh Harold, you remind me of the irony...both men dying on the same day. Adams last words, "Jefferson lives - thinking that Jefferson "won" - outlived him, but the truth was, Jefferson had died hours before ...Adams died not knowing that he had won the wager he had made with Jefferson!
-
What an unusual event, these two exceptional men dying on the same day. And strange enough to make waves in supernatural realms, strong enough to be felt by people like Audubon a thousand miles away!
My newspaper yesterday featured the event in its daily 'A Moment in Time' corner. With these words by Patrick White, under fine portrais of Adams and Jefferson?
'They love, they loathe, they reconcile, they die on the same day - the story of Jefferson and Adams has the makings of a historical buddy flick. It starts with two young men uniting in the common cause of freedom: Thomas Jefferson, a genteel libertarian, and John Adams, a conservative from farming stock. In the summer of 1776, they forge a friendship and, eventually, a country, with the drafting of the Declaration of Independence. When the Revolutionary War ends in 1783, the friendship does too. The low point comes during the presedential election of 1800. Adams accuses his opponent, Jefferson, of atheism; Jefferson claims Adams wants to be a king. They make peace a decade later, starting a 15-year correspondence that ends the day they both die - the 50th anniversary of the document that brought them together.'
That's a bit of history that captures the imagination. At any age'
-
Hi JONATHAN - It's the stuff of movies, isn't it! Has it been? There was one of John Adams, was it on HBO or PBS? I would like to see it again, I'll look it up.
Whenever we do a history discussion I am reminded of Faulkner's comment -
The past is not dead, it isn't it past.
How does one interpret that?
-
Marking my place. I have the book TBR and will look forward to the discussion.
My "search" story is looking for "These Angry Days" instead of "Those...".
Small gripe is wondering why almost every book I'm looking for is on the bottom shelf at the library? >:(
-
Hi Callie, laughing at your small gripe; but I understand it!
Big griipe this morning is that I read in my newspaper that the landline phone service will not be with us much longer. AT&T expects all landlines to be gone by 2020 and is not replacing storm driven outages, etc. I have a cellphone but much prefer my landline, sounds better; perhaps I am not adjusting to change as well as I thought.
Think of the jobs that technology has replaced. (And I'm off the subject, I know)
-
Copper phone lines--that's a real hot button topic with me, Ella. Last summer that big storm (the derecho) knocked out power in my area for a whole week. Everyone with the fancy new systems quickly ran through their backup batteries, most of the cell phone services weren't working, but I could still use my good old-fashioned phone. It sort of saved my life, since temperatures were around 100 degrees, and after the first couple of days I needed to track down a friend with power and an extra bed in order to avoid cooking to death. Given the number of power outages we have here, a non-electrical phone system seems like an essential backup.
Callie, in my library the good books aren't all on the bottom shelf; some of them are on the top shelf, where short people like me can't reach them, or even read the titles.
-
Pat, I have that problem, too - as well as at the grocery store. I am forever going around looking for a "tall person" to get a can or box that's way at the back of the shelf.
-
Bottom shelves/ top shelves...these are good, honest gripes. Perhaps they're sent to try us. Perhaps I've missed a lot by staying at eye level. Not that there is any lack of good reading on those middle shelves.
Gripes may not be off-topic at all, Ella, going into a book like Those Angry Days. In fact, they may be mood-setting.
I can find a gripe in 'The past is not dead.' I was brought up being told a Recording Angel was making an entry in his ledger of everything I said and did. And I would be held accountable! I never lost much sleep over it, leaving it all to that other angel we all have keeping watch over us.
In fact, isn't the past enjoyable, when it's brought back to life by authors like Lynne Olson?
-
Callie, I always had a pleasure helping someone out in that situation.
-
Can you imagine the hot disputes among the angels who are keeping their eye on human affairs. What a history that must be, seen through their eyes!
-
Would there be good guys and bad guys for them.?
-
Would there be a gender difference between Recording Angel and Guardian Angel? This could make a difference in seeing justice done. I must see my lawyer about that. She would know.
-
There was great weeping in Heaven yesterday. We got five inches of tears in two hours. Here in Toronto. A tragedy up there? It was a calamity down here. We're drying out today.
-
Yes will join you. Just finished reading In the Garden of Beasts about Ambassador Dodd the scholar sent to Germany in the late 1930s because Roosevelt couldn't find anyone else to take the job. Dr Dodd had studied in Germany and was slow to realize what was happening but Roosevelt relied on him to keep him privately informed. State Department thought he was a light-weight.
-
OH, good, KISAL. Welcome, welcome!
There are many such stories about individuals in this book. Perhaps it's because I admire FDR's administration, but he seems to dominate the book. As an author, it would difficult to stray from such a personality as Roosevelet, but our author does a good job with other individuals of the period; however I must admit that most were connected in some manner to the great one.
Lincoln is the president that more books are written about -
"Some 15,000 books have been written about Lincoln — more books, says Tetreault, than have been written about any other person in world history, with the exception of Jesus Christ."
http://www.npr.org/2012/02/20/147062501/forget-lincoln-logs-a-tower-of-books-to-honor-abe
However, when speaking of our most popular, important presidents these come to mind often or do you agree? Washington, Lincoln, FDR - is that the big 3 or are there more?
http://www.npr.org/2012/02/20/147062501/forget-lincoln-logs-a-tower-of-books-to-honor-abe
JONATHAN, there is weeping on earth also - two weeks of rain, no flooding though in our area of central Ohio that I know of.
-
JONATHAN, I was taught the same. But when my little girl was about 5-6 i caught her in a whopper of a lie and to impress upon her the importance of truth I told her that the lie would be a very black mark on her book in heaven. Very innocently, she said - Why didn't you tell me that before? All children try to get away with a little lie to test authority, but I have never forgotten that incident, because
I'm not sure I believed in those angels and I was just as guilty of telling a lie. What contradictions we humans must deal with.
-
In the Garden of Beasts sounds like a good book to read for some background to our upcoming discussion. Thanks, kidsal. I wonder what the president was hearing from his accidental ambassador. It must have helped him in his decisions regarding the German problem. Might it have turned out differently if he had sent Lindbergh to Berlin as ambassador? Or Joe Kennedy?
'Why didn't you tell me that before?' Ella, what a surprising thing to hear from a child of 5! Doesn't every culture have it's rules about eventually weighing of individual lives and the consequences? I've often wondered about suffering through a purgatory or taking my chances with reincarnation, for a second chance to get it right.
-
hello there
I too would like to join the August discussion about 'Those Angry Days', went out yesterday after I found the Barrie library near us had one copy in....and its with me now. Looking forward to this discussion.
My grandfather came to Canada from England when he was 16 or so, settling in Saskatchewan; when the first world war started he joined the Canadian army and went overseas with them.
Kidsal I too recently read 'The the Garden of the Beasts' about Ambassador Dodd and his family; hobnobbing with the nazis...interesting read.
My intention was to read Lynne Olson's book about WW! in sequence and began last year so this fits right in.
take care
Deb
-
Good to have you with us, DEB! Thanks for posting.
-
Just got my copy--haven't had time to peek at it yet.
-
Well, then wait and read along with the rest of us. We will do the FIRST 7 chapters the first week.
Will be posting a schedule later.
-
hi there
have been working out my confusion...guess I thought Lynn Olson mainly wrote about the first world war and I have been reading her books about that war, trying to do so in the order of their history.
I was with the book club though when we read about how Winston Churchill came to be the Prime Minister during the second world war. I have also read quite a number of books about the second world war, mainly about how the war came to influence people's lives in various countries....was trying to map them on googlemaps as to their geography but am not talented enough....but have itemized them according to their location in the world on a map I have
some of the books I have read have been about:
*a couple who ran a polish zoo & how the animals were handled, how they hid friends & relatives
*a market gardener in Holland, his wife and life during this time
*a German man who became one of Hitler's inner circle but later tried with a small group of men to murder Hitler--what was interesting was his relating his childhood and how parents took much pride in their children dressed up like little soldiers marching to military music
*an English woman who married a German just prior to the war and spending the war in Germany
*of course Corrie ten Boon (not sure if that is the correct spelling
*2 children at school trying to make their way home in Germany
* a few men who were aided by local tribes people and hidden when their plane went down in an isolated area in Asia (forgot where)
and ended up spending 3 months living like nomadic tribesmen
*fiction books by Nevil Shute and war time in Australia
and quite a few others, mainly people relating their war experiences
my uncle was a pilot with the Canadian air-force stationed in England; his plane was shot down over the English channel I am told, but he survived and
my aunt, a nurse went over to England to be with him thru his recovery....that is my world war 2 story;
anyway enough mumbling; just some thoughts about the war and my interest in it....it will be interesting to know more about the United States President and Lindbergh
as have read an interesting book called "Intrepid" by William Stevenson.....he was very prominent in the war with undercover work there was quite an area a bit southeast of us in Ontario where he had a large area to help train people going for undercover in Europe during the war....and ...there is a picture in the Orillia Canadian Legion with him, Winston Churchill and President Roosevelt sitting side by side by side
anyway enough said
have a good day
Deb
-
Hi DEB! Wow, you do have an interest in that period - you're the perfect person for this discussion. I looked up William Stephenson on Google, quite a guy. He is mentioned in our book in several places:
"He was an extremely private man, an enigma all around........he moved like a panther, a black panther......he had that quality of blending into a crowd. You wouldn't see him....He was so swift and so silent." Gave great cocktail parties, though, where you would meet anybody." Quotes from the book.
See you in August............
-
The Book Club Online is the oldest book club on the Internet, begun in 1996, open to everyone. We offer cordial discussions of one book a month, 24/7 and enjoy the company of readers from all over the world. Everyone is welcome.
August Book Club Online
PLEASE POST below if you can join us starting August 1
THOSE ANGRY DAYS by Lynne Olson
Roosevelt, Lindbergh, and America’s Fight Over World War II, 1939-1941
| (http://www.seniorlearn.org/bookclubs/angrydays/angrydayscover.jpg) |
".............the definitive account of the debate over American intervention in World War II—a bitter, sometimes violent clash of personalities and ideas that divided the nation and ultimately determined the fate of the free world. - The New York Times
“In Those Angry Days, journalist-turned-historian Lynne Olson captures [the] period in a fast-moving, highly readable narrative punctuated by high drama. It’s . . . popular history at its most riveting, detailing what the author rightfully characterizes as ‘a brutal, no-holds-barred battle for the soul of the nation.’ It is sure to captivate readers seeking a deeper understanding of how public opinion gradually shifted as America moved from bystander to combatant in the war to preserve democracy.”—Associated Press |
| DISCUSSION SCHEDULE: |
| August 1-7 | Chapters 1-7 |
| August 8-14 | Chapters 8-14 |
| August 15-21 | Chapters 15-21 |
| August 22-28 | Chapters 22-28 |
Discussion Leaders: Ella (egibbons28@columbus.rr.com) & Harold (hhullar5@yahoo.com)
'It will be interesting to know more about the United States President and Lindbergh.'
You won't be disappointed, Deb. I find the book giving me a whole new perspective on the events leading up the U.S. entry into the war in 1941. Add one more to your impressive reading list. You're right about the training camp set up here Ontario, to help Intrepid with the vast intelligence operation he set up in the U.S.
I've just started reading a most interesting takeoff on those events. Philip Roth's The Plot Against America. Roth imagines Lindbergh as the Republican choice in the presidential race in 1940. With Lindbergh winning by a landslide, and promptly making deals with the Germans and the Japanese. Unbelievable.
-
Jonathan: wow, another book to read and giving fresh perspective of what might have been, good thing that book is fiction....scary some of the 'what could have been the outcome situations', , but looks like an interesting read....just checked and the Orillia L. has a copy in house...you know the German man who was one of Hilter's elite till he changed his thoughts (among the books I listed a couple of replies ago) of what was right and what was wrong, had me sympathizing with him....upbringings and one's schooling play so much influence over mindset....gives a lot of food for thought
Deb
-
Hello everyone of the many who have posted here in the past almost two weeks that I have been away. Welcome to all of you who posted during the period that you will participate in the discussion. We now seem assured of having an active group of participants. It will be a fun event.
-
What a great group of people here for the discussion -- I wouldn't miss it!
Had to laugh at the books on the top shelf. I always go to the bookstore with my son (6 feet 5 inches) and he gets books for me, and a lot of other people.
-
HELLO JOANK - so happy to have you with us! We are going to have a grand time talking about the book - really, FDR and Lindbergh together in one book, of course we are.
We all need sons as tall as you have, I've have shrunk I know. It seems to come with age, why? Is it gravity forcing us down or our bones just getting weaker, what is it?
-
I've shrunk too. I think it's mostly the padding between the vertebrae squishing thinner.
-
Oh, our padding is gone - well, from one place between our back bones into the middle where there are no bones.
-
Never knew I had THAT much padding back there. ;)
-
And JoanK makes twelve. With the tip-off on where to look for the humor.
I'm almost old enough to remember the Lindbergh kidnapping. Sometimes I think I do. So, I was very pleased the other day to find that I am still growing. I can no longer touch my toes. I've always done that very easily. I suppose I should get some verification, so I'm off to the library to check my visual comfort level in the stacks.
Perhaps it will be harder to put my foot in my mouth. I need help with that one.
-
JONATHAN: "Perhaps it will be harder to put my foot in my mouth."
unfortunately not, as I can tell you from personal experience. :D
-
JoanK, Glad to have you with us.
Also, last night I watched a television movie relating to our pending discussion. This was a post war English movie entitled, "The Battle Of Britain." I recall seeing it many years ago. It is the story of the German air blitz against England in the late summer and fall of 1940 and the determined defense the the RAF. The version I saw yesterday was interesting, but it seemed to me that some of the detail in my memory had been cut.
-
Harold, I went looking for 'The Battle of Britain', and ended up watching another documentary film 'Finest Hour'. It was absolutely engrossing, with stunning battle footage, heartbreaking personal accounts, and historical commentary, and many allusions to the need for help to save Britain from the Nazi onslaught. Which of course leads directly into the subject of our book. In fact, the film includes a clip of Lindbergh addressing a crowd at Madison Square Gardens, arguing against America getting into the war.
What an amazing man, that Winston Churchill, taking over, with his country in such dire straits. And with his defiance giving his countrymen the strength to carry on. Looking back after many years, one of the secretaries at 10 Downing St, says, in the film, 'It was impossible to feel fear in Churchill's presence.' With bombs falling all around them. Of course, Churchill knew what needed to be done. Few options.
President Roosevelt on the other hand was confronted by too many, inflicted on him by the democratic process.
-
Jonathan, thank you for your comment particularly on "Finest Hour." I'll check to see if I can find it. Our discussion will begin next Week on Thursday.
-
Perhaps, this is what Jonathan was referring to????
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W1B3JGEjzFo
That is Part l, I'm not sure where Part II is.
One thing I have never understood is why Hitler did not invade England when he had just defeated France and had all those troops and weapons on the other shore of the English Channel. I know that just about that same time he foolishly opened the front into Russia (or am I correct in that?) and then, of course, the Engllish Channel is not, was not, very easily negotiated.
II am so looking forward to our discussion. Those angry days, all those arguments for/against, all those great historical figures. Two, of course, will stand forever in history, Churchill and Roosevelt. Lindbergh, of course, but not in the same context, do you agree?
-
Yes Ella, the link you posted appears to be the one Jonathan is referring to. In any case it is a really an interesting 1 Hour, 50 minute video account of the German invasion or Belgium, Holland, and France beginning May 10, and ending in mid June with the French surrender and the barely successful British evacuation of over 300,000 of their Army from Dunkirk. Also Churchill had replaced Chamberlain determined to carry on the war. Interestingly it also brings in the conflicting attitudes of the United States toward the War during this period.
Click the following URL for Part II,
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=W1B3JGEjzFo&desktop_uri=%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DW1B3JGEjzFo
This Part II, also about 1 hour 40 minutes picks up the History where Part I ended particularly with the German Air blitz on on England beginning in mid August 1940. Hitler intended this to either force England to surrender like France or to destroy the RAF making a sea invasion possible. During this period Hitler made a peace proposal on considerably better terms than those offered France. Still Churchill refused and by the end of 1940 the German air operations over Britain were reduced, though the RAF while wounded was yet not destroyed as Germany prepared for other operations to its east in the Baltic states and Russia. Again we hear details of the U.S. reaction at the news of the apparent overwhelm military strength of the Germans .
I hope all of you will have the chance to watch both of these film documentaries before our discussion begins next Thursday. It sure enhances ones understanding of the rather detailed story presented in the book.
Incidentally, I showed these films to several of the residents here an Chandler, These people were generally some 10 years younger than my 87 years and they were much impressed with the depth of the involvement of civilian populations particularly in England situated as they were on the front lines or the War.
-
The English are very proud of the participation of the home forces during those dark days.
-
I watched a bit of the films, Harold. I'm not good at sitting in front of computer screen for that long a time (I probably should get a Kindle or Nook, shouldn't I).
Okay, now we need a show of hands - or in lieu of that, hahaha, how about a post if you were an adult or teenager from about 1939 to the end of the war?
I'll be first. I was born in 1928 and a teenager during those wartime years. I was writing to two soldiers, but if I had been older I would have had a map on the wall and would have been following the progress of the war more closely. I married a WWII veteran but didn't meet him until 1948.
How about a post now about your own age at this time?
-
I was born in December, 1935 - an only child - and no immediate family members were in the military. I have vague memories of a few "home-front" events but nothing that interrupted my life.
-
Funny you should ask, Ella. I was just thinking while reading these pages, how sorry I was not ever once to have a conversation with my father about the war years. I was born in 1938...no memories at all except the day my grandmother was hanging out the clothes in the backyard and a neighbor lady called to her that FDR had died. The only time I ever remember that grandmother crying.
Will really depend on you and others to share memories...and of course we do have the Olson book we are reading.
I don't even remember how my parents felt about the war - sending arms and aid to Britain. They never talked to me about it. That was a good question - glad you asked it. Can't wait to hear others respond.
-
I was born in 1933, so was eight when Pearl Harbor was bombed. I remember it vividly: sitting on the floor, watching the green radio dial while Roosevelt announced it, and asking my parents "What is war"? I didn't understand what was going on, but I could see my parents were scared, so I was too.
-
I guess I was about minus ten, I had an uncle in the war who was shot down over the English channel, he was a pilot, he survived to become a lieutenant-colonel in the Canadian armed forces. My mother was probably about 20 having finished her bachelor degree in Saskatchewan and was in Montreal doing something with checking guns (quality control) and my father worked in Calgary as he was colour blind and wasn't eligible to be in the armed forces as he wanted to be. My parents met on a train heading west he heading to Calgary from his home in Toronto, she from her position in Montreal to her parent's home in Saskatchewan.
And me I wasn't even a blimp on the radar.
Deb
-
Obviously I was born in 1933 too. While JoanK was listening with our parents, I was upstairs in bed with a bad cold, listening on a radio. I remember hoping Congress would vote not to go to war, not realizing how unlikely that was.
I have almost no historical memories of the time covered by the book, but plenty of later wartime memories. We did have maps on the wall, and marked the fighting with colored pins. My father didn't fight (too old plus 4F) but I had cousins who did. Luckily, none of them got killed. And I, too, married a veteran.
-
I guess I am a babe in the woods here, I was born in 1952. As far as interest in history, war, politics or even who was president I must say I didn't enter the scene until JFK was running for president. I did not know much at all until the day he was shot. I remember the news showing how devastated people were, then when Bobby Kennedy was shot I really started paying attention. I didn't really follow the Viet Nam war, and to be honest I didn't understand much about the aspects of war and how it effects the world until Bush's presidency. I watched Colin Powell on t.v. showing where WMDs were supposedly hidden and trying to support the reason why we needed to go into Iraq. Since then you can call me a political junkie. lol I have learned more from joining Senior Learn's discussion on history than I ever did in my High School years. But....NOTHING seems to stick in my brain or memory. Why is that????
I just got my book from the library and will begin reading tomorrow. Looking forward to learning more about this war.
Ciao for now~
-
Hasn't it been extraordinary, what we have all lived through? I came in with the crash of '29, and it's just been one thing after another ever since. Exciting times. And that was the reflection of one elderly narrator in the film Finest Hour. For a twelve-year-old the dogfight in the air above his head in the British skies was an exciting thing. In Canada, at the same age, my chums and I played our wargames with our model Spitfires and Hurricanes. And we too licked the Luftwaffe and got Hitler to try his luck in the East. Before the war was over I had a summer job at the Yale Lock Company which had switched to making hand grenade casings. I snitched one as a souvenir. It just occurred to me after all these years. Did I save some soldier's life by keeping the grenade as a souvenir? As the war dragged on I remember the mixed feelings of soon finding myelf in uniform and going into battle. And then, almost suddenly it seemed, it was over, and the excitements of peace outdid any we had felt during the war.
-
We memorized the shapes of planes, so if a plane flew over we could tell whether it was a US or German plane. Of course in the US, German planes never did fly over. I found out later, though, that some good did come of that. One plane spotter decided that if you could recognize a plane by its shape, you could do the same with birds. He published a book about it, and the sport of birdwatching was born. His name was Roger Tory Peterson.
-
hi
just wanted to say watching the film you mentioned Jonathan, was the most visual experience about the war that I've seen;....especially seeing the men marching and people's thoughts being presented....then watching the narrator walk the paths today (I imagine)...realizing from having read the book about the Chamberlain/Churchill change in Prime Minister, and how unprepared the British were before Churchill came to power.....am interested in some of the other films listed alongside this, on other aspects of the war.
thank you for mentioning this.....one of the most memorable sights I watched on another program was the funeral boat with Churchill's body travelling down the Thames R. and along both sides of the river many tall industrial cranes all standing at attention....and as the boat passed by they all lowered one by one; I feel goosebumps just in the memory of having watched this.....
-
TOMORROW IS THE DAY!
Thank all of you for posting! We have such an array of participants; a variety in age and personal memories.
But we are all interested in American history - the period that produced, according to Tom Brokaw, the greatest generation.
Okay, here's a few thoughts we might begin with tomorrow:
-
In the Introduction there is a short summary of the pro-con argument of America going to war in 1940. What side would you have been on? (We will debate international responsibilities later in the book).
Both FDR and Lindbergh were strong-willed, stubborn men who believed deeply in their own superiority and had a sense of being endowed with a special purpose. They were determined to do things their own way, were slow to acknowledge mistakes, and did not take well to criticism.”
Are you dismayed by this description of the two giants in America’s history? Does this description remind you of anyone you know? Would it describe many politicians? Is it important that our heroes have these same personalities in order to succeed? Does it help?
-
Another movie I enjoy, I can't remember how many times, is PATTON, with George C. Scott. With its rousing start, as the general addresses the troops:
"Men, this stuff that some sources sling around about America wanting out of this war, not wanting to fight, is a crock of bullshit. Americans love to fight, traditionally. All real Americans love the sting and clash of battle."
General Patton, obviously, never read this book.
-
One day til D - Day..... Ella, it is interesting to see you ask these questions: Does this description remind you of anyone you know? Would it describe many politicians? Is it important that our heroes have these same personalities in order to succeed? Does it help?
As I was reading the first chapter I was amazed at how striking the similarities are to today's media, president, and attitude of the people. I have a Facebook page, and had posted earlier at how I was beginning this book with my on-line book club and how history seems to be repeating itself with this book and today. And....yes throughout all of the years before, after and in between I suspect. Not to get too political or biblical, I did analogize it to the time Moses went to receive the Commandments, and while gone the people ran a muck, no morals no faith, no leadership. I feel today that is how I see our country....running a muck. We seem to have no heroes stepping up, no honesty, integrity or leadership. Egos are clashing every where, polarization between the parties, people, inside the parties, the White House, congress, countries, races, religions, media, unions, etc., etc.
I can't wait to read more of this book and begin the discussion.
Ciao for now~
-
I can remember reading somewhere that Churchill was very pleased to be perceived as a modern Moses, and rightly so, but I can't believe that Roosevelt's ego was as large as that. And, of course, his people weren't in the wilderness.
-
I've found the reference. It's in the Bruce Feiler book we discussed some time ago. It tells about Cecil B. DeMille travelling to England after the making of his THE TEN COMMANDMENTS. Quote:
"He visited Churchill in 1957. Churchill was his hero. He called him 'the greatest man of the twentieth century.' Churchill received hin in bed, and De Mille told him the story of Moses as if Churchill was Moses - Churchill led his people to freedom, Churchill fought back the Nazis. And the old man burst into tears." Page 239, in AMERICA'S PROPHET.
-
MOSES!! Well, I wouldn't go that far.
HELLO JONATHAN and BELLAMARIE.
Both of you off on your own little journey back in time - way back in time. Great to see you both here.
Churchill and FDR stepped up to the plate when their countries needed them - weren't we fortunate to have had them!
Which one of those two would you rather sit at the dinner table with?
Tomorrow we'll begin our discussion - hope to see many of you here.
-
Book hasn't arrived as yet -- so hope to catch up. I was born in 1932. Remember listening to the radio the day of the Pearl Harbor bombing -- problem is I wasn't living in that house at the time. Don't know why I have this memory. Our way of live was so changed by this war.
-
“A loner all his life.”“In school, he had virtually no friends, took part in no sports or extracurricular activities, was silent in class, and did not date. After his flight to Paris, his high school classmates…..had few if any memories of him.”
Knowing nothing of this boy turned adult, what would you imagine his future to be?
KIDSAL - While waiting for your book, you can post as the questions are fairly easy aren't they? You don't need a book to discuss Lindbergh. When did you become aware of him?
-
If you have the time you might want to watch/listen to this video:
http://www.biography.com/people/charles-lindbergh-9382609
-
Good Morning to you all. It's our D-Day as Bellamarie has suggested. I like that. And the author informs us that a terrific battle will be fought in her book.
Ella sees a dinner table and distinguished guests. How about the Round Table? The makings are there. Already in Chapter 1 we meet 'a modern Galahad' in Charles Lindbergh. And, of course, FDR will be our King Arthur. The 'Quest'? Peace or War? Quest suggests noble purpose, dream, or such, doesn't it? One thing is certain. Both men wanted the best for their country.
What does 'D' stand for? Democracy? That's what this book is all about. The winner in the end, in its fight with the ideologies of the twentieth century. What a fight before the fight!
-
We're off to a "flying"start -so many thought-provoking questions raised! Hopefully we will come up with some answers as we read and discuss these issues together.
In the Introduction there is a short summary of the pro-con argument of America going to war in 1940. What side would you have been on?
A good question, Ella! As a mother of four sons, I'm sure their safety would have been my first concern. I would have been an isolationist, at least until France fell to the Nazis.
As I read these pages, I have so much regret that I never had a conversation with my father, or my grandparents after the war when I was old enough - about where they stood.
The two things that struck me from the outset - the absolute power of the press to form public opinion (why did that surprise me :D) - and then the de-myth-ifying ( is there such a word?) of those two giants...FDR and Charles Lindbergh.
Did anyone see the PBS production last night - the recent findings on who killed the Lindbergh baby? Hauptmann, yes, but others implicated - some eye-openers that make you reconsider Charles Lindbergh as the Modern Galahad, Jonathan. PBS:NOVA Who Killed the Lindbergh Baby (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/tech/killed-lindbergh-baby.html)
-
I Know that in 1934 through 1941period most all of the adults around the 13 year old me were isolationists. I know of no one who was ready for war even as France fell and the Battle of Britain began. I think the first signs of change began to show was in the summer of 1941when England yet survived and Hitler centered his war in Eastern Europe by invading Russia. Also by this time England had shown some offensive ability by freeing Ethiopia, and showing some offensive strength with the first of several desert offenses from Egypt West through Italian Libya. This caused Hitler to pull German army units from Europe to French North Africa to stop the British advance. Also the absolute evils of Hitler and Naziism was becoming clear. After that it was only a matter of time as we progress through the book.
-
Well, let the discussion begin.....and indeed it has. Jonathon:
"He visited Churchill in 1957. Churchill was his hero. He called him 'the greatest man of the twentieth century.' Churchill received hin in bed, and De Mille told him the story of Moses as if Churchill was Moses - Churchill led his people to freedom, Churchill fought back the Nazis. And the old man burst into tears." Page 239, in AMERICA'S PROPHET.
Oh how excited I was to see your post. I knew instantly when you asked about a reference what you were thinking, I loved reading America's Prophet. Not sure if I would see FDR as a Moses, but Churchill, maybe. :-\
I am a bit saddened with the first chapter on Lindberg, how the media could be in part responsible for the baby's kidnapping and death. I never realized the media has been such a nuisance, I will go one step further, in seeing them as criminal in their actions, for so many centuries. Didn't the media play a part also in Princess Diana's death? I know when great things happen it is necessary to publish it for all the world to see, but at some point a person should be allowed some privacy, and their children/wives and families should be off limits. I just finished reading the book, The Day John Died by Lynn Olson, it takes you from the time JFK Jr. is born, and goes throughout John Jr.'s life. Up til, and the day he died in that fatal plane crash, he was hounded by the media. The media has stretched beyond the rights of "the freedom of the press." I have only been interested in politics for the past 20 yrs., so reading this media frenzy was as bad back then as it is now, I am disappointed there have not been laws passed to prevent the harassment, and dangerous actions of the press.
Ella, I'm not really sure where I would have stood back then, if I had been alive and old enough to be aware of war and politics. I know being a strong patriot, I would have wanted our country to help our allies, but deciding how to aide them, and at what point sending troops, I would have to know a lot more, before deciding my feelings.
Ciao for now~
-
The Book Club Online is the oldest book club on the Internet, begun in 1996, open to everyone. We offer cordial discussions of one book a month, 24/7 and enjoy the company of readers from all over the world. Everyone is welcome.
August Book Club Online
THOSE ANGRY DAYS by Lynne Olson
Roosevelt, Lindbergh, and America’s Fight Over World War II, 1939-1941
| (http://www.seniorlearn.org/bookclubs/angrydays/angrydayscover.jpg) |
".............the definitive account of the debate over American intervention in World War II—a bitter, sometimes violent clash of personalities and ideas that divided the nation and ultimately determined the fate of the free world. - The New York Times
“In Those Angry Days, journalist-turned-historian Lynne Olson captures [the] period in a fast-moving, highly readable narrative punctuated by high drama. It’s . . . popular history at its most riveting, detailing what the author rightfully characterizes as ‘a brutal, no-holds-barred battle for the soul of the nation.’ It is sure to captivate readers seeking a deeper understanding of how public opinion gradually shifted as America moved from bystander to combatant in the war to preserve democracy.”—Associated Press |
| DISCUSSION SCHEDULE: |
| August 1-7 | Chapters 1-7 |
| August 8-14 | Chapters 8-14 |
| August 15-21 | Chapters 15-21 |
| August 22-28 | Chapters 22-28 |
Discussion Leaders: Ella (egibbons28@columbus.rr.com) & Harold (hhullar5@yahoo.com)
I saw the show last night on who kidnapped the Lindbergs baby, and also an earlier History detectives, focusing on his role in developing new planes. Wonder if he is suddenly on TV as a reaction to this book.
Finished the reading last night as well. This book is like those harsh photos that show every wart and pimple of the person and hide their good qualities. Neither Lindberg nor FDR come out looking good.
In Lindberg's case, it is our silly fault for thinking that just because someone is a wonderful flyer, he's someone whose opinion we should look to in politics. I have lots of sports stars I admire, but I wouldn't even think of asking them how I should vote!
I was intrigued by meeting the model for James Bond. Had any of you heard of him?
-
Bellamarie, you make a good point connecting the deaths of Princess Diana and John Kennedy Jr with excessive press interference in their privates lives. This is particularly true in the United States where there is express constitutional provisions guarantee the freedom of the press. Generally the Courts have been inclined to allow this right to publish liberally.
On Where I stood during 1939 - 1941 clearly I had a pretty good idea of what was going on in Europe reading Life Magazine and other news source including radio and printed press. After Xmas 1941 I also had shortwave radio. I was 13 in Oct 1939, but from the beginning I admired the English and particularly Churchill. Alternately there was nothing in Germany attractive to me. I certainly was not an Isolationist.
Also looking back quite likely it was probably good that The US delayed in entering the war since it gave us 2 years to build our ability to fight a war. The two years delay gave us some creditability as a serious contender enabling a turnaround win at Midway just 7 months later and participation in the North Africa offensive less than a year later.
-
OH, THANK YOU ALL FOR POSTING, ISN'T IT ALL INTERESTING?
Lindbergh, would anyone have known him at all if he had not made that successful fllight across the Atlantic?
After his historic flight, the resulting publicity, the media circus surrounding the death of his son, he decided he and his family had no alternative but to leave America.
He said...‘…. a condition exists which is intolerable for us………..we Americans are a primitive people. We do not have discipline. Our moral standards are low. It shows in the newspapers, the morbid curiosity over crimes and murder trials. Americans seem to have little respect for law, or the rights of others.”
Lindberg would be appalled today with our TV and its emphasis on crime, murder trials. The recent Zimmerman trial, for example. Is this an indication that we are a morbid, primitive people?
As several of you have noted, and Harold stated, our constitution provides for freedom of the press. However, we know the press, the media, give us what we want or what we will watch.
What is your opinion of our interest in crime? Does this bother anyone?
-
I'm not so sure I personally have a fascination for the news coverage of crimes. I have breakfast every morning with my husband and we watch the morning news, mostly for the weather report. In our city we have almost at least one murder, arson, or other form of crime reported every morning. I am disgusted, because I feel this administration and our local elected officials are not doing more to crack down on the crime by passing stronger penalties for committing crimes and repeated offenders. I don't watch any of the CSI weekly shows or any shows that have gotten so insensitive to crime that they show anything and everything for shock value.
Joan K, "In Lindberg's case, it is our silly fault for thinking that just because someone is a wonderful flyer, he's someone whose opinion we should look to in politics. I have lots of sports stars I admire, but I wouldn't even think of asking them how I should vote!"
I agree with you completely, and I will go one step further, I like a lot of actors and actresses, but I KNOW I do NOT need nor want their endorsements or public ads to try to influence my vote, or personal ideas close to my heart such as, abortion, health insurance, etc., just because I pay to see a movie they are acting in. I feel the United States has gotten so enamored with Hollywood, and Hollywood has gotten so enamored with themselves, to the point of thinking because they play HUGE parts in movies, they are HUGE enough in real life to alter our thinking and votes.
Ella, Yes, I think Lindberg would have still been a name in history, and newsworthy, had he not made that flight due to his association and participation of the airplanes and airlines.
Ciao for now~
p.s. Oooooops my apologies, the author of The Day John Died is Christopher Andersen (not Lynn Olson) what was I thinking? ???
-
Ella...Bellamarie, I too think our news sources get over-wound up with their reports of murder and crimes; and I sometimes wonder why I am listening/watching this news program ....last night for instance on a Canadian TV station they reported Zimmerman being pulled over by the police for a driving offence and finding a gun in the car....would that have been newsworthy if it had been my American Uncle Fred for instance...there was no charge laid, nothing bad happened
JoanK-there are so many sides to a story or a person's perception of an event that portrayal of it can be severely slanted and therefore unreliable as a truth...Lindbergh's view of Germany, the Germany that the high command wished him to see, he mainly associated with the upper crust and did not get the average Joe's thoughts from the streets, his refusal to be overly concerned (pg 19) with the Gestapo pogrom November 1938 & the murder of hundreds of German Jews, not to mention vandalizing and the burning of businesses, homes & synagogues.................yet his influence was enough that many people took his word to be their fact, --scary--he didn't even speak German, everything would have needed to be translated for him
-
Have not got this book yet but I do remember the War years as I was born in 1922. I had just started work in a Law office and gradually all the young men joined the forces. Now mine is an Australian view point. Wanted to join up in 1941 but could not get my father,s permission but by 1942 events had happened- Pearl Harbour, Darwin (Australia) had been bombed by the Japs and a whole Australian Division of soldiers had been captured in Singapore and the future looked grim in this country. What saved Australia??? Well General Macarthur arrived withplanes -ships-and a well equipped Army. In the WAAAF I was drafted to Allied Headquarters and worked in different sections of Intelligence-Photographic interpretation,Central Intelligence Unit and also at ATIS which was Allied Translater and Interpreters section. All these sections were staffed mostly by Americans. Until the end of the war these years were bitter sweet- sometimes good news and other times the casualty lists. My generation (and there are not many left now) KNOW that if we had not had USA come to our rescue The Japs would have invaded Australia from the North.
I do read the book discussions -have just finished reading The Bear came over the Mountain but these days I am a slow reader but must go get my kindle and get this book. You may not see many posts from me but I will be following .
-
Thank you Waafer for your post relative to your experience in Australia in 1942. I Know Australia was in danger of a Japanese inversion and in fact in May 1942 a U.S task force with two U.S. carriers encountered a similarly sized Japanese carrier force involved in an attack on Port Moresby. What followed was the first modern naval battle in which the opposing fleets never saw one another. The battle was an air encounter with the opposing ships a hundred miles apart. Though each of the opponents lost a carrier the battle was deemed an American success as the Japanese withdrew from their Port Moresby objective. Also this battle has been judged a preliminary to the summer 1942 Battle of Midway because the damaged U.S. Carrier was hastily repaired. and was ready for the Midway operation.
-
Good afternoon WAAFER! When you get your book, you will be reading about the hostility many Americans had toward Great Britain and intervention. Always, forever, we will be wondering what would have happened if the Japanese had not attacked us when they did. The country did a complete turn-around and very quickly.
However, this book is centered on the years prior to that attack and Lindbergh, a hero at the time, was giving speeches on the radio and the newspapers were quoting him constantly. It is hard for me to believe that Lindbergh was listened to; by what authority, what source other than his trips to Germany, made him believe he was correct in his views.
He was young, shy, a pilot. The New York Times criticized the “peculiar young man” for his attitude and then FDR became enraged stating among other like statements: “What a pity that this youngster has completely abandoned his belief in our form of government and has adopted Nazi methods because apparently they are efficient.”
Other than planes, weapons, what did he know of diplomacy, as BELLEMARIE and JOANK both stated.
Do you think the author has exaggerated his influence with the public? And used Lindbergh, possibly, to make the book more interesting?
We read about Dorothy Thompson, who was a very popular columnist and who had lived in Austria and Germany when Hitler was rising to power. She wrote of his evil regime - "Nazism is a complete break with reason, with the Christian ethics that are at the bas of liberalism and democracy."
And then there was Eleanor..........
-
I feel like I am barging in here - I do not have the book however, I posted in the non-fiction some information that Jonathen suggested I bring to this discussion - I am simply going to copy and paste two of the posts that have information that may be helpful
That was a peek into my mother's youthful fantasy crush - in her photo album she had a photo of Lindbergh next to his plane the Spirit of St. Louis. Good looking - a bit fay compared to my father but he must have had a strong character to attempt crossing the ocean in that plane.
In the thirties most folks were against the war - but it was little talked about except in the German communities as we were beginning to hear stories that were not fun from about '37 on - but we still never dreamed we would be in the war.
It is amazing how we are not satisfied looking at a whole man but rather caricature someone - even Hitler who now we only see him as a monster that he was but he also did many good things like designing one of the most successful cars that we had movies featuring and for years was the first car for most college age kids. He designed the Volkswagen Beetle as the "people's car" in the early thirties when most of the west was still deep in the depression. The depression may have been officially over by about '35 or '36 but most lower income families were still struggling on the cusp of poverty and wondering hobos were still the norm till about 1940. In that depressed economy no one wanted a war. We still believed the oceans protected us.
Alex S. Perry, Jr says, "Had Hitler been the kind of man history says he was and had he captured the British army at Dunkirk, which he could easily have done and should have done, he could have written the peace ticket without invading Britain. Churchill's worried son Randolph asked Churchill a few days after he became the prime minister how could he expect to win this war. Churchill replied, "I shall drag the United States in.""
I think over the years folks have written their version of history as they try to come to grips with the holocaust. And yet, when you look at the article written in 1912 "If I Were Kaiser" the entire program for WWII was laid out and originated when Bismark united Germany in the nineteenth century including the Jewish "Question". - here is a copy - http://www.h-net.org/~german/gtext/kaiserreich/class.html
Lindbergh was not alone believing they could avoid war. As I recall the Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain attempted to negotiate for peace but it was Churchill who wanted war.
Hindsight is great and had we known the system Hitler would use to achieve the program as outlined in the 1912 published piece none of us would have avoided the inevitable - as I recall our aversion to war was so great we would not accept a ship full of Jews escaping Europe so that they were sent back to face their horrors. In affect most, if not all of us, were Lindberghs.
-
The second post with some personal experience before we entered the war.
Yes, thank goodness for Churchill's determination - I do not think the book under discussion is about who was right or wrong but rather what happened -
Some very good people were trying to keep us out of war - The US only got in as a result of Pearl Harbor although, some young men were going to either Canada or England to fly before we as a nation entered the war -
There are books indicated that Pearl Harbor was a set up to get the US into the war because the majority in the nation did not want to be involved - War in Europe was considered far away over the ocean and had nothing to do with us. That almost immediately changed after Pearl Harbor although, quietly for a few years before Pearl Harbor there were government internment and deportation of Germans in the US.
My best friend's Uncle had only come from Germany a few years before and in '39 he was taken by plainclothes men with badges - I was young and did not know what branch of the government came for him but I do not think the CIA existed yet so it was probably the FBI that was pretty new as well. All to say the nation and many leaders may have been against entering the war but some officials must have seen Germany from a different perspective
-
Regarding Lindbergh in 1942 I really didn't know much about hi m except he was famous as the first man to fly a plane across the Atlantic, he had a baby who had been kidnapped and murdered., and the killer had been caught and executed. I really did not know about his political/social activities. He is an interesting personality deserving of his many honors and awards. Yet obviously in the light of history he was wrong. I do think however as I said yesterday the world was better off that the U.S. delayed its entry into WW II until the end of 1941 as the delay gave us 2 year for substantial upgrading of the fighting capability of the army, navy and air force. Within just a few months after Pearl Harbor the U.S. was able to participate in both defensive an offensive action on two fronts, Coral Sea, Midway, and North Africa.
Back to Lindbergh I note from browsing the wickopea encyclopedia that Lindbergh had quit college midway in his sophomore year to learn flying. For a while after that he toured the country appearing in air shows. Also he was in my home town, San Antonio TX, for one year where he won his Wings and 2nd Lieutenant bar. He was first in his graduating class but assigned to the reserves since the army did not need more pilots on active duty at the time. His trans Atlantic Flight was in response to an advertised cash prize the had already taken the lives of some half dozen men. He as it turned out was the lucky one and was immediately a World Hero
-
My memory of Lindbergh during the years leading up to the war he was no longer shy although, not outgoing but very passionate - this was after they had their baby stolen and I wonder if that changed him to become more forceful - I remember seeing him on newsreels speaking, as he came off a commercial plane after visiting Germany and once heard him on the radio - he was strong in his belief that war was not in our best interest - however, there were many average folks who agreed with him so he was not whistling in the wind - I remember the talk among the grown-up that it was over there and the ocean was between us and Europe.
-
HI BARBARA! There were probably German Americans everywhere who felt the antgaonism of the public before and during the war. We have what is now called GERMAN VILLAGE and the city is very proud of it; they have tours of all kinds through the village, with its brick streets, adorable small brick houses, festivals. etc. From what I understand no one called it that during the early decades of the 20th century.
And no one in the years of the thirties was singing OVER THERE, OVER THERE as they did during WWI.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_Village
Read about the decline of the village in that article.
-
I don't think the author exaggerates Lindbergh's influence. He was so very prominent, and people tended to set great store by the opinions of celebrities. Olson makes it clear that Lindbergh was one of many saying the same thing, albeit the most visible, and also that there was plenty of very vocal opposition.
-
As we get farther into the book, there will be more about Lindbergh's temperament and personality.
I remember my Mother telling about sitting on the curb of Main Street in OKC watching Lindbergh go by in a parade after his famous flight. She had just had her wisdom teeth removed - but didn't want to miss the excitement.
I don't remember ever hearing any more about him.
I only vaguely remember hearing about how wonderful Roosevelt was during the war years. It's been enlightening to read about him during the years covered in this book.
-
Books on a subject seem to appear in clusters. Sunday's New York Times Book Review describes three. One review covers Olson's book and 1940--FDR, Willkie, Lindbergh, Hitler--The Election Amid the Storm, by Susan Dunn. You can't tell what Dunn's book is like; he only mentions it twice, though he uses the word "superb". The review mostly summarizes the events of the time and relates them to Olson's book.
Another review describes Rendezvous with Destiny--How Franklin D Roosevelt and Five Extraordinary Men Took America into the War and into the World, by Michael Fullilove. This focusses on Sumner Welles, Bill Donovan, Wendell Willkie, Harry Hopkins, and Averill Harriman, all of them in one way or another pushing Roosevelt's agenda. Because they were interventionists, the book misses the passionate debate over isolationism vs intervention.
-
Yes after the war no one wanted their German Heritage to be made public - however, my memory until just before the war there were many well respected German communities and the German culture was strong in this country - from farmers/ranchers to craftsmen with most of the famous department stores owned by Germans and German Jews.
When i was little, before I was in school maybe '38 my grandmother received a letter from Hitler - probably a secretary but he signed it - asking her to come back to Germany that he re-instated the estate that was her mother's family estate. It was her mother who emmigrated just before our Civil War when Germany was going through an upheaval with promises of one type of government that was quickly changed back to what was. Do not have all the details but the estate was destroyed and as a young women alone she sailed for America. There was a big family discussion in the kitchen and grandma was pretty adiment that she was not going back however, my one Uncle thought it was a good idea - thank god for Grandma Katie's stubborn ways. And as a family that become a constant mantra It was the following year in '39 that lots happened that alerted us to how bad it was in Germany and how bad it was becoming, to be German in America.
-
Regarding discrimination against local Germans in San Antonio Texas I want to say it did not happen here in San Antonio either during WW I or WWII based on family tradition or written preserved archives
http://homepages.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~hharnold/
This is probably the result of strong, long lasting family ties, and a large local German population with whom they socialized and which was probably the largest of the non-Hispanic populations. I wish I could be as positive on their record regarding other ethnic populations
-
How challenging, trying to reply to all the interesting posts. I do believe we have a tiger by the tail with this book.
Thanks, Barbara, for posting. Your views, your experience, and your information, add a lot to the discussion. And that goes for the posts of everyone who is participating.
The prospect of war aroused such strong feelings. And they could be and were so different for everyone. Hence, as Pat points out: 'the passionate debate', which Olson captures so well in her book. Thanks, Pat, for the references to several other books on the subject. I've had a look at the Dunn book. It is great. Wendell Willkie was a registered Democrat as late as 1939! That's a good indication of the turmoil in American politics.
I've looked at some other books on the subject. They all mention Lindbergh, with at least a passing reference or two. So why does Olson put him at center stage? Ella asks some good questions on that. Why would anyone be interested in his opinions? Why would the president be alarmed by Lindbergh's particpation in the debate? Why would the British agents in New York spread mean rumors about him? The plot thickens.
I stumbled across Philip Roth's book, The Plot Against America, dealing with this same topic under discussion from a Jewish point of view. Where could he have got the idea that the Lindbergh kidnapping was a Nazi plot? Rather far out. Now I find out it was the doing of those British agents in New York, trying to discredit Lindbergh! There is always some reality behing every fiction, it seems.
-
Harold, you shouldn't post those links to your family when I'm busy. ;) Now I want to follow up every trail, look at every picture, never mind that I don't know any of them.
Jonathan, the NYT review says "Probably no historical account can match the skill with which Philip Roth evokes this isolationist witches' brew in The Plot against America." I may have to look at that book; I didn't pay any attention to it when it came out.
-
I recently read another alternative history book relevant to this bit of history: Jo Walton's Farthing. It starts out as a standard British country house murder mystery, but taking place in an alternative world in which Churchill was ousted in 1941, and England negotiated peace with Hitler. Germany now controls the rest of Europe, and anti-semitism is rampant.
At first you wonder, why the alternative universe, but it soon becomes only too clear. The mystery is solved, but the problems of some of the characters will have to be settled in the sequels. Evidently in the sequels it's made clear that the US failure to aid Britain was crucial, and also Lindbergh has become president of the US. The two sequels seem to be both mysteries and "try to save the world" fantasies.
-
Good grief. I finally got around to reading Barb's link If I Were Kaiser. Just about every sentence calls for rebuttal. This was in 1912, before WWI.
What about later? What about Mein Kampf?
A spy story I liked had one character saying Why are people surprised at what Hitler does? Why don't they just read Mein Kampf? He spells it all out there.
Is this true? It was published in 1925, so that would be a clear warning. I haven't ever tried to read it, it's apparently pretty unreadable, irrational and raving. Does anyone know what he says in the book, whether he gives a good idea of what he intended?
-
I'd like to hear from someone who has read it too, Pat - I found it on line - don't know why that surprised me, but it did. I guess I thought it had been banned or something.
I'm wondering if Lindbergh ever picked up a copy when visiting Germany.
You can read through the whle thing here - if so inclined:
Mein Kampf (http://www.angelfire.com/folk/bigbaldbob88/MeinKampf.pdf#page3).
This really helps - hearing from those of you who have memories of the days before we went to war - before we believed we'd ever get involved in another world war in Europe again - after the first one. I find it hard to believe that there were people who wanted us to go over, though I can understand wanting to send destroyers and arms to Britain so she could defend herself.
My heart goes out to Anne Morrow - she must have been devastated when her firstborn was murdered, yet she carried on, writing books and supporting her husband's positions. I was somewhat reassured to hear that the baby may not have been murdered in cold blood - not that it mattered much in the long run. On the NOVA report last week, investigators concluded that the baby's skull injuries indicated that he was dropped by the kidnappers as he was carried down the ladder out of the house.
I need to go back and look at recent links posted today. The Internet is such an amazing contributor to this discussion - though not as amazing as your memories.
ps Pat.loved the alternative scenario - President Lindbergh. What an idea!
-
Shoot I do not know where to post this but PatH asked about how folks were not more familiar with Mein Kampf or If I Were The Kaiser in the non-fiction discussion where I shared my thoughts and see a similar post from Pat here - so again repeat -
Think what it was like in the twenties - first, in the late nineteenth century roughly half of all 5- to 19-year-olds were enrolled in school. In the first 30 years of the twentieth century the blacks attending school stayed at the same percentage but not only did birth rate fall for whites but their attending school only increased to 51% - only 5% were college educated.
At the time Germany has less literacy than the US - there was a craftsmenship program where boys from the age of as early as 8 but most at age 12 left home and spent 2 year periods living with a master craftsmen and then starting at 16 you roamed the countryside seeking employment that included board. Those from noble families were educated and there was a large Bourgeois in trade who were mostly Jewish.
People were pretty much only concerned about what was happening within their national boarders - if you saw the movie "Red" that recently was shown again on TV you can see the effort that went into a movement and the politics of the ruthless - Hitler moved in on a nation reeling and blamed for WWI experiencing incomprehensible inflation - the rest of the western literate world was in Jazz Clubs with the likes of F. Scott Fitzgerald.
And so who would be reading Mein Kampf - probably only those who were thinking as Hitler's party was thinking - and remember the Jews were the butt of all that was wrong for generations and as much a "problem" as Blacks were here during this time in history. They had been good trades people not being allowed to own land leaving no room for a rising middle class among other Germans.
-
and again a second post
I am thinking that like us - we are pretty much an educated curious lot - and yet, I doubt many of us read or was familiar with If I were the Kaiser - I shared it only to help us understand the plan for what happened during WWII was not new made up by Hitler - the plan included in If I were The Kaiser was the thinking among the leaders of Germany for a long time.
To them they were trying to unify Germany and to bring back to Germany all those who emigrated elsewhere. They needed more land to accommodate the returning Germans and they likened themselves to early times after Charlemagne when Europe was broken into three sections for each son and the land that is essentially Germany now was one parcel - that is one of the Reich's -
Remember the Nazis were saying they were the Third Reich - the time of Charlemagne was the first and there is a dispute which was the 2nd Reich. Some say when Otto in the 10th century gathered all and became the first Emperor and others say it was when Bismark unified Germany in the nineteenth century - all to say the 3rd Reich was to be a united Germany that included Prussia, the Slavic nations and the area along the Rhine including what is Alsace-Lorraine. Any area that did NOT have a direct relationship to Rome but to the Goths and the other tribes north of Rome that threatened Rome and that Charlemagne had included in his Holy Roman Empire.
The rest of Europe never wanted to see a united Germany especially they were afraid of Prussia that was a powerhouse in ability, raw material and could easily overtake all of Europe
Here is a copy of Mein Kampf - a literate work not sounding like written by a crazy man but worked out in logic based in different conclusions than our own experience or view of Germany's experience - reading it in light of the holocaust looking for an explanation for that madness is really hard to find in Mein Kampf - http://www.hitler.org/writings/Mein_Kampf/
-
"People were pretty much only concerned about what was happening within their national boarders " - Barbara thank you for your posts.
But there were concerned people in America as they watched Hitler sweep across Europe. Robert Sherwood, the playwright, for one. He had fought in WWI and, undoubtedly, came out of that conflict with PTSD. Wasn't his story fascinating! Had you ever heard of his play ABE LINCOLN IN ILLINOIS? How clever! "the finest piece of propaganda ever to come into the theater."
Before we go further, we should discuss the NEUTRALITY ACTS passed by Congress in the mid-1930's and the problems they caused FDR and his administration. (pg. 32-34)
Did they make a difference to what was going on in Europe?
-
Here is an interesting site explaining the Neutrality Acts. Simply put, easy to read.
http://history.state.gov/milestones/1921-1936/Neutrality_acts
-
And as one of you said, (was it JOANP) the Internet is a great tool in discussing history. Here it Hitler's Threat and FDR's dilemma:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/features/bonus-video/presidents-policing-fdr/
(am in a dreadful hurry this morning, but I did skim all your posts, so interesting, thank you!)
-
The neutrality acts had a good purpose ,ie, keeping the U.S. out of purely European wars. The problem in 1939 and 40 was that WWII from its inception was not a purely European War. Because of Hitler's basic ruling Nazi philosophy, we had a definite interest in its outcome. Granted that in 1939 and 40 this fact had not yet become clear, but we will see in the next several weeks how in 1941, we as a nation came to see the real nature of our situation.
-
Harold, what a marvellous set of photographs. And an interesting piece of family history. You mentioned a military engagement in the Pacific, preceding the Midway naval battle. Where could I find more information on the earlier engagement? I remember it vaguely.
JoanP asks: 'I'm wondering if Lindbergh ever picked up a copy (of Mein Kampf) when visiting Germany.'
I don't think so. FDR, in a moment of frustration and anger, was heard saying 'I am convinced Lindbergh is a Nazi.' (Quoted in Goodwin's No Ordinary Time).
Where's the evidence? Our book talks only of Lindbergh's impressions of German technology and military capabilities. His travels in Germany were mainly information missions, which he later shared with American and British military and civil leaders. Of course he may have been impressed by the German manner of controlling the press. I don't think he was ever introduced to Hitler.
Thanks, Pat, for the info about a second book (fiction of course) that features Lindbergh as President. Neither did I pay any attention to the Roth book when it came out. I came across it a few weeks ago while book shopping and saw how apropos it was.
And now for a look at the Neutrality Acts. Did Congress see a gleam in the president's eyes?
-
So what were Lindbergh's aspirations, once he accomplished his solo flight and made a name for himself in aviation? He's clearly not happy with the public's adulation. He even left the country until the coming war forced him to return.
He was an isolationist...wanted to avoid getting into war, I understand that. But what did he want? Clearly he admired Germany...though I see nothing about how he felt about the Jews and their treatment. Did he really want Britain and Germany to negotiate some sort of peace? What exactly would that be like?
Once home, Lindbergh doesn't really have a role, does he? A job, a position? He's a thorn in Roosevelt's side on the war issue, but he's not after political power - or is he?
-
Also, I feel I'm getting to know FDR - better than I did before reading this. He seems so weary of being President. I'm not sure why he decided to run for a third term, are you? What is the law on that? I'm sure there must be one. When was it passed?
Clearly he doesn't want to get the country involved in another war...so why does he want to run again and be in a position to have to make these decisions? What is his interest in the Neutrality Act?
-
A gleam, JONATHAN, in FDR's eye? Thunder and ligtening in those eyes; he tried desperately to get those Neutrality Acts repealed; they prevented him from aiding Great Britain in her fight against Hitler. He was shrewd enough, clever enough, to find a way around them by the Lend-lease program.
JOANP asks why FDR decided to run for the third term. I think it was because he saw what was happening in Europe and believed we ought to either help or get involved although he stated in his inaugual speech, as I remember reading, that he would never send a boy to Europe to fight. The Republicans, for the most part, were isolationists as I think most of the country was. However, people believed in FDR, he had done so much for the country in the depression.
And, of course, all those programs in the depression era gave enormous power to the executive branch - and Congress has been fighting the office of the presidency ever since (personal opinion). But I do think that our founding fathers set it all up this way - checks and balances - we are doomed to hear all about it, hahaha Particularly, it seems in the present situation.
These parties, isolationists and the interventionists, are interesting to read about. Don't they remind you somewhat of the tea party folk? Do you remember any other parties formed similar and for what purpose?
Tomorrow let's delve into some of these personalities described in our book.
-
And while we are discussing interventionism, what do you think of our present day intervention into all these countries' problems, the wars of the 20th century. Vietnam, Bosnia, Persian Gulf, the Middle East. What are we doing? What is our aim?
Did our intervention in Europe in two WW wars give us a sense of power, a belief that we could solve all the problems in the world?
-
My take is there was and is a different aim for each intervention - not wanting to take us too far afield from the book so simplistic one liners sharing my thoughts
Vietnam, We were afraid of the spread of Communism and the balance of power during the Cold War
Bosnia, I think was pure humanitarian with the UN leading the show
Persian Gulf, we want to secure the safety of the oil and American oil business in the Gulf and more recently American Business wanted to control retrieving for profit the oil and needed the troops for protection and the hoped for take over of the oil fields.
Middle East. Bottom line I think we are assuring the protection of Israel surrounded by Arab states and for a long time the only democracy in that part of the world.
Afghanistan. the movie Charlies Wilson's War explained that as we 'rescued' Afghanistan from the Russians and become caught up in their national religious war with the far right Islamist, the Taliban.
My take on Lindbergh is, he was catapulted into fame and glory, become exceedingly wealthy and ran with the business elite when he was at home in his mansion. He is smart and most likely listened to the table talk in the US and in England and peaceful coexistence made more sense -
There were others who thought peace could be negotiated with Hitler, like Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain so, he was in good company. Could be dead wrong but I would think feeling the need to use his status and show something for himself aiding his country he set his hat on a vision that many of the best minds could not see the danger and he went for it.
We have the benefit of hindsight so it is too easy for us to pass judgement after the facts were made clear. Churchill comes out as a visionary and yet, he may have only used his temperament to go after a very old nemesis, Germany. Plus, he did not want the world to know, especially all the English territories, just how weak a nation they had become and so he stood tall and persuaded, if not manipulated the help he needed to keep Britain as 'the' vital power of the world - he was not going to pass that baton to France much less Germany and so he befriended the naive to ancient hates, the Americans.
-
Jonathan regarding the May 1942 naval battle that I mentioned yesterday google Battle of the Coral Sea for information. And thank you for your comment on the family history site. they are from an interesting set of family photos in an album taken between 1908 and 1918.
-
JoanP "Clearly he admired Germany...though I see nothing about how he felt about the Jews and their treatment."
There is a statement that he didn't seem all perturbed by Krystalnacht: a horrible time when many Jews were killed or had their businesses destroyed,
The Nova show emphasized more than the book has L's connection to the Eugenics Movement. That was a horrible movement that, by L's time, had already, in the name of improving the race, been responsible for thousands of forced sterilizations, especially of Blacks in the South and Asian immigrants in the West.
-
Interesting we see in Chapter 5 that the famous Einstein letter to Roosevelt was sent to Lindbergh with a request that he deliver it to F.D.R. Lindbergh, delayed forwarding the letter but finally forwarded the letter as requested. When Roosevelt received it he began the process that led to the development of the atom bomb.
-
I was interested in learning more about FDR's third term - and the fact that in the 1944 election during World War II, he won a fourth term but suffered a cerebral hemorrhage and died in office the following year.
"Near the end of the 1944 campaign, Republican nominee Thomas E. Dewey, the governor of New York, announced support of an amendment that would limit future presidents to two terms. According to Dewey, "Four terms, or sixteen years, is the most dangerous threat to our freedom ever proposed."[2]
The Twenty-second Amendment of the United States Constitution sets a term limit for election to the office of President of the United States. Congress passed the amendment on March 21, 1947. It was ratified by the requisite number of states on February 27, 1951"
-
I reread the chapter dealing with Lindbergh's return from his visit to Germany, JoanK. "After Kristallnacht there were strong anti-German feelings in the US." Apparently Lindbergh's lack of empathy, lack of interest in the moral question were not lost on the American public - former great fans of his. Whenever his face appeared on the screen in movie theaters, the audience would hiss.
Don't you wonder how Anne felt about this? We're told that she was shaken - and believed the attacks made on her husband were unfair.
When he reported that Europe was on the verge of war, he urged the need for neutrality - but his views weren't really necessary at this time. How aware was the US of the plight of the Jews? No matter what they knew - Most Americans did not want to get involved in another war. (Who would?)
Was this the end of Lindbergh's popularity in the US?
Harold, what year was that? What year was the Atomic Bomb developed? After we decided to get into the War? Or was it being developed to be "lent" to Britain to defend herself?
-
The Book Club Online is the oldest book club on the Internet, begun in 1996, open to everyone. We offer cordial discussions of one book a month, 24/7 and enjoy the company of readers from all over the world. Everyone is welcome.
August Book Club Online
THOSE ANGRY DAYS by Lynne Olson
Roosevelt, Lindbergh, and America’s Fight Over World War II, 1939-1941
| (http://www.seniorlearn.org/bookclubs/angrydays/angrydayscover.jpg) |
".............the definitive account of the debate over American intervention in World War II—a bitter, sometimes violent clash of personalities and ideas that divided the nation and ultimately determined the fate of the free world. - The New York Times
“In Those Angry Days, journalist-turned-historian Lynne Olson captures [the] period in a fast-moving, highly readable narrative punctuated by high drama. It’s . . . popular history at its most riveting, detailing what the author rightfully characterizes as ‘a brutal, no-holds-barred battle for the soul of the nation.’ It is sure to captivate readers seeking a deeper understanding of how public opinion gradually shifted as America moved from bystander to combatant in the war to preserve democracy.”—Associated Press |
| DISCUSSION SCHEDULE: |
| August 1-7 | Chapters 1-7 |
| August 8-14 | Chapters 8-14 |
| August 15-21 | Chapters 15-21 |
| August 22-28 | Chapters 22-28 |
Discussion Leaders: Ella (egibbons28@columbus.rr.com) & Harold (hhullar5@yahoo.com)
-
From my reading no one even the elite of this nation knew about what was going on in the camps till well into the war and the rest of us only learned when the first camp was entered.
We have to remember the Jews were not treated very nice in this nation - I remember as a child if a Jew was walking on the street he had to get off the sidewalk and walk in the gutter - (the gutters were where guys relieved themselves) Jews were not allowed in many restaurants or allowed to join most clubs - seems to me there was a Gregory Peck movie AFTER the war that showed his experience as a Jew in the world of business - maybe Gentleman's Agreement - I remember seeing the movie and it making an impact -
And so, I think the audiences were reacting to what seemed unfair and fairness was an important value for Americans. Early on, before the war started for us, I do not think we took the plight of the Jews in Europe too seriously just as we did not take the plight of blacks rioting except to bring in more police control until Watts opened our eyes - but that involved damage to whites so that may have been the difference - we only had movies about Jewish soldiers fighting side by side towards the wars end - never looked at the timing but it could be after the camps were discovered.
-
Oh, I understand that the horrors of the death camps were not known until the end of the war, Barb - but Kristallnacht in 1938? Did the rest of the world know about this - and react to it? You don't think the movie audiences were hissing at the way the German army was treating the Jews - but the unfair way they were treating the conquered masses? But we can agree that Lindbergh was aware of the atrocities, but chose not to react?
-
Thanks, Harold. Of course it was the Coral Sea Battle.
This is some (his)story. Even Ernest Hemingway makes an appearance (p28) with his opinion: "Of the hell broth that is brewing in Europe we have no need to drink.... We were fools to be sucked in once in a European war, and we shall never be sucked in again."
That was written in 1935, part of the isolationist feeling in the country that led to the Neutrality Act. The president wasn't happy with it, but signed it nevertheless, needing Congressional help with his New Deal measures. Right?
I'm left with the impression that the Lindberghs came back to the U.S. in 1939, after three years in Europe (living in England, France, but not Germany) with Charles determined to keep his country out of war. The book tells us that the America First movement had soon found their mouthpiece.
With hardly a speech or two, Lindbergh finds himelf being vilified. He was obviously hurting someone. Enter Harold Ickes, one of FDR's attack dogs. The book tells us, p28:
'Shortly after Kristallnacht, during a speech to a Jewish group in Cleveland, the cabinet secretary blasted Lindbergh for accepting "a decoration at the hand of a brutal dictator, who with that same hand is robbing and torturing thousands of fellow human beings." Anyone who took a medal from Germany, he added, "automatically forwears his American birthright."
Ickes had brilliant administrative and executive abilities. I enjoyed reading a biography of him several years ago. I meet a different Ickes in this book. Now I hear that around Washington he was talked about as 'a common scold', 'a louse', 'DC's tough guy'. What HST said about him I don't even want to repeat.
It's also a new president I am getting to know. Like JoanP has said.
-
We have to remember the Jews were not treated very nice in this nation - I- Barbara
I believe that. I was on the debate team in my high school and my partner was Jewish. I got all kinds of whispers about that. He later became a professor at Harvard and we exchanged emails at one time.
America was founded primarily by Caucasians from Europe and I believe that since then there has always been a racist attitude toward "others." The Irish, the Italians, and all the rest; and worst of all bringing bringing slaves from Africa.
Lindbergh accepted a medal from Germany, he admired the German people for their industry (he saw only those things that the Germans wanted him to see, of course) and upon hearing of Kristallnacht, he remarked "I do not understand these riots on the part of the Germans, it seems so contrary to their sense of order and intelligence in other ways. They have undoubtedly a Jewish problem, but why is it necessary to handle it so unreasonably."
-
JOANP, the atomic bomb history is one of the most fascinating you can read about. It all started in Manhattan and then, of course, grew to New Mexico which is still a National Laboratory. I visited there some years ago - the story is all there. The Labortory is not open to the public but one can't help wondering what secrets are behind the doors.
The people involved are as interesting as the bomb itself, so do read a couple of books about it and, of course, it is all over the web. Just one site:
http://inventors.about.com/od/astartinventions/a/atomic_bomb.htm
-
As JONATHAN mentioned Ickes - a foe of Lindbergh's - I will mention a friend. General Hap Arnold:
(http://t2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRKWTh2MQpJuJRVqY6b5mQJMfU7vOYof2XWoRgigAaDVHki42IbNA)
A handsome man, right? His story is very interesting; do read it:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_H._Arnold
On a visit to the National Air Museum in Dayton, Ohio we listened the story of the women in the WASPS, the Women's Army AirForce Service Pilots. She had old live movies of them at a base in Texas, but one of their peeves were of General Hap Arnold who refused to let them fly overseas, although daily they were flying the huge planes from the factory to bases all over the US without a single crash.
-
So.....after reading the first seven chapters of the book, what is your opinion of FDR?
-
Joan the first Atomic Bomb was dropped on Japan August 6, 1945. I knew it was in early August but had to check the date. I was on a Navy transport nearing a Philippine Island port. We got the news at the regular noon news cast over the ship loud speaker. I questioned a navy ensign also a passenger I happened to see, "is that an oxidation Reaction?" He didn't know any more than I. A few days later similar news announced the 2nd bomb had been dropped. A few days after that at anchor in harbor at night while watching "Saratoga Trunk (Garry Cooper, Ingrid Bergman), suddenly the search lights of some 50 war ships lit the sky, follow by rockets and even some anti aircraft fire. Somebody shouted, "Air Raid." But the shooting stopped quickly after our ship's loud Speaker announced the pending surrender. I saw the rest of the movie some 11 months later after my discharge in June 1946.
-
Regarding F.D.R, I see him at this stage as the professional politician poised in planning mood at a time of intense International activities. I think the idea of a possible third term was on his mind. While there was a strong tradition against a third term there was certainly no actual legal prohibition. Readers who participated in our Garfield biography discussion 2 years ago will recall that in 1884 General Ulysses S. Grant actively sought the nomination for a 3rd term just four years after leaving the office after the end of his second term. In 1884 he was in fact the leading candidate when the Republican convention opened. It was only after an enthusiastic Grant nominating speech by a relatively obscure Congressman named James Garfield that the convention suddenly dropped Grant and Nominated Garfield. In any case the possibility of a 3rd term is moot today because of the constitutional amendment now in effect prohibiting it.
I see FDR in the 1939 -40 period biding his time waiting to see how the game in Europe played out. After 1941 arrived with England still alive the his course became clearer and little by little his support for England became stronger until it included actual combat in the north Atlantic culminating in the declaration of War after the Japanese attack and Hitler’s declaration of war against the United States.
-
after reading the first seven chapters of the book, what is your opinion of FDR?
My opinion has certainly changed after reading these chapters. I knew that he was hesitant to get involved in the war, that he needed an excuse, which didn't come until many lives were lost in Britain much later. I thought it was a matter of principle though, didn't realize that he was so sensitive to public opinion - the polls. Perhaps before the election, that was understandable. But after the election? The isolationists and the interventists and their lobbying seemed to render him incapable of making decisions. I wasn't aware of this before. Did the American people see him this way? Did you, Harold? Were you aware of the ferocious battle going on to sway his opinion?
Lynne Olson really did her homework for this book. Just noticed the pages of notes for each chapter in the back of the book! We're hearing now of the politicians and those who knew him on the inside. The names! So many familiar, vaguely familiar - and those I never heard of before. Feel as though we have an inside seat at oval office meetings - or at least in Congressional hearings!
I also learned the President held grudges against those who opposed him, resolved to get even. The Senator from Monatana - Sen. Burton Wheeler, a former supporter, who opposed FDR, became a leading voice for isolationationism. I see there was a book written about him - Great Man from Montana - later made into a movie - "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington." It's details like this that fill in the blanks...make the whole period come alive. Did you notice that the Senator's tax returns were audited following his opposition? ;) Things haven't changed much, have they?
-
Back when Roosevelt was so undecided about the war, I am surprised that he gave the go-ahead on the Manhattan Project... So far in the book, Lynne Olson bareley mentions it - and yet the President must have known about it - approved the expenditure? Was it 1939 that Einstein wrote the letter, asking Lindbergh to deliver it to the President, warning that scientists in other countries were capable of producing "a bomb of extraordinary power, urging him to set up contact with those working on chain reactions in America.." It seems Lindbergh never responded to Einstein's request. Someone must have.
Ella, I read the link you provided - It was shortly thereafter (after Einstein wrote to the President) that the United States Government began the serious undertaking known then only as "The Manhattan Project." The fact that we were working on the atomic bomb at the time Roosevelt was procrastinating about lending aid caught me by surprise. It shouldn't have, but it did. I can see where the isolationist Lindbergh didn't want to get involved...
Harold, awesome that you were in the Pacific when the bombs were released! Awesome!
-
I am enjoying the conversation immensely; wish I could be contributing, but don't really know much about the war with the exception of what I have read in the past.
something I wanted to share
a book I have read
'A Man Called Intrepid' by William Stevenson, about William Stephenson, (two different people) who is the man whose code name was Intrepid during the second world war.
the forward of the book is by Intrepid and starts-
'President Franklin Delano Roosevelt supported a secret war against tyranny for two years when the United States was formally at peace.
....
"For cogent reasons, the fundamental facts of that hidden activity have never been fully revealed. The complete facts have been known to few,....; and for thirty-five years they have been under the rigid restraint of Britain's Official Secret Act. " -
.....
"In 1940, supplied all but daily with evidence that Hitler's scheme of world domination by terror, deceit, and conquest was undeniably underway, Roosevelt recognized that the defeat of embattled Britain would be prologue to an ultimate attack upon the Untied States. Intelligence was given to him by me or through me as Winston Churchill's secret envoy and as chief of British Security Coordination, SSC, ....headquarters in New York....hub for all branches of British intelligence. ....Only a leader who could extend his vision of national self-interest to the belief that a union of free people was the real defense against totalitarian aggressors would wager on Britain at such unattractive odds. Roosevelt was such a gambler.'
Stephenson goes on to say disclosure of facts to do with the British organization from the 2nd world war were brought forth in 1962, when Kim Philby, the double communist agent fled to Russia; the book I site from written in 1972 when "the Russians had learned rather more (further information) and might use this information to bludgeon our friends, to distort history, and to hurt United States and Canadian relations with Britain. Full disclosure at last was the answer to this threat and the demands of history. Hence this book." (The Intrepid)
-
HAROLD, my husband was in the Pacific on an aircraft carrier and, although he never talked about the war, he did say once that everyone was so relieved when the bombs were dropped to end the war as they were preparing (the fleet) to invade Japan by air, sea and land.
JOANP, two scientists that I have read about that worked in Los Alamos (the lab) - Oppenheimer and General Groves (although I think he was to oversea the project) - interesting to read. Oppenheimer was accused of being a Communist - well, here is the short history.
"During the beginning of World War II, news arrived in the U.S. that the Nazis were progressing towards the creation of an atomic bomb. Though they were already behind, the U.S. believed they could not allow the Nazis to build such a powerful weapon first. In June 1942, Oppenheimer was appointed the director of the Manhattan Project, the U.S.'s team of scientists who would work to create an atomic bomb.
Oppenheimer threw himself into the project and proved himself not only a brilliant scientist, but also an exceptional administrator. He brought the best scientists in the country together at the research facility at Los Alamos, New Mexico. After three years of research, problem solving, and original ideas, the first small atomic device was exploded on July 16, 1945 in the lab at Los Alamos. Having proved their concept worked, a larger scale bomb was built. Less than a month later, atomic bombs were dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in Japan.
The massive destruction the bombs inflicted troubled Oppenheimer. He had been so caught up in the challenge of creating something new and the competition between the U.S. and Germany that he - and many of the other scientists working on the project - had not considered the human toll that would be caused by these bombs. After the end of World War II, Oppenheimer began to voice his opposition to creating more atomic bombs and specifically opposed developing a more powerful bomb using hydrogen (the hydrogen bomb).
Unfortunately, his opposition to the development of these bombs caused the United States Atomic Energy Commission to examine his loyalty and questioned his ties to the Communist Party in the 1930s. The Commission decided to revoke Oppenheimer's security clearance in 1954". - About.com
As I remember, he was brought up by the Senate for a hearing, but perhaps I'm wrong. I just felt very sorry for him, it ruined his life.
-
continued.....
social historians
Gordon Thomas & Max Morgan-Witts authors of
'Enola Gay', the bombing of Hiroshimo
excellent book about the making of the bomb and the pilot who flew the bomb, he named his plane after his mother 'enola gay', I believe (its been awhile since I read this book, but that stuck in my mind) he had a lot to deal with mentally after he realized what he had been required to do by the armed forces...
Faces of Hiroshima
by Chisholm, A.
a number of disfigured women (from the radiation of the bomb) were transported to the United States and plastic surgery helped them renew their confidence....sadly they were ostracised in their homeland because of their disfigurement, they and many others....
Deb
-
HALLOO---OO -- 00
WHERE DID EVERYBODY GO? WHAT IS YOUR IMPRESSION OF FDR AT THIS POINT IN THE BOOK? WAS HE SOMEONE YOU ADMIRE? WAS HE MAKING THE RIGHT DECISIONS FOR THE COUNTRY?
-
What a pity that FDR never got a chance to write his memors, to set things straight. He certainly left historians with a huge problem in determining his political motivations in steering the ship of state. He admits it was like walking on eggs. He was the consummate politician. Or statesman? His stature can only increase in history's judgment. Leading a reluctant democracy into a necessary war poses impossible challenges. In the end, historian Stephen Ambrose concludes it was "Just Dumb Luck" that helped the president out, with help from his enemies. Hitler and Hirohito went about their business without consulting polls and other branches of government.
I'm a slow reader. On page 42, I read:
'Years later, Anne (Lindbergh) would write a novel entitled Dearly Beloved, two of whose major characters were clearly modeled on herself and Charles.'
We get some of her thoughts and feelings about her life as wife of Charles Lindbergh in the book. We must keep in mind that she was an ambitious literary type, who did a lot of writing. Anyways, quite coincidentally I was made aware of this when I was looking around for whatever I might have on the Coral Sea Battle. I've got boxes of old stuff on WWII. I picked up a pocketbook Guadalcanal Diary, by Richard Tregaskis, first published in 1943. My Popular Library copy came out in 1962. I remember reading it with great interest. I don't think I noticed it then, but now, at the back of the book, announcing other titles in the 'Library', was this, taking up the whole last page:
The Exciting New Best Seller
DEARLY BELOVED
a novel by
Anne Morrow Lindbergh
"Extraordinary...characters as diverse as the...philandering husband; the mother of the bride; a divorced woman; a young Frenchman...like reading very personal diaries" Harper's Magazine
Has anyone read it?
-
Oh, there is DEB. Thanks for the post!
Another fascinating book, one I haven't read, to add to our list.
Bob Greene, the ex-reporter for the Chicago Tribune, wrote a very sad book about that pilot who lived in my hometown of Columbus, Ohio. Gosh, I can't think of that pilot's name at the moment, but Greene's father was dying at the time and the book is about that and his interview with _________said pilot, who was very hard of hearing. Greene had to yell in his ear (strange the parts I remember from the book).
What is your opinion of FDR at this time - a strong, a weak, an indecisive leader, or one who is being caustious. Should he have run for a third term?
-
in going with the book (Intrepid) I have read in the past I felt Roosevelt was trying his best to head his country in a direction that would help democracy & freedom. Until this book I had not thought of him as caught up in all the turmoil of an American public & Lindburgh wanting to stay out of the war as he felt it shouldn't involve them...Stevenson's book was written from paper from the British government and Stephenson's own words and notes.....I'd like to stay with my belief in his version of this history. ....
Doesn't this show one how history has so many sides depending on how close one is/was to the facts, how well researched the book might be/was, what side of historical events the writer is/was on, imagine Hitler's version of his actions, as well as Lindbergh's version of his trying to have his opinion of 'not going to war' supported.
I must say I felt sorry for Lindburgh as the awkwardness of the situation in his own home hosting a dinner receiving a medal ( could he refuse it?) ....it appears he didn't put it on, didn't wear it; the his countrymen were against him because of the gift. Were the German's aware of the position they put him in by giving him the medal??? I have not liked Lindberg but in this instance I really felt an empathy.
just a thought....that little synopsis of history I received in grade school doesn't come close to the history I have learned in the past 15 years since I delved into non-fiction reading as well as joining this group
-
Deb, that's an interesting quote from INTREPID, ending with:
'Only a leader who could extend his vision of national self-interest to the belief that a union of free people was the real defense against totalitarian aggressors would wager on Britain at such unattractive odds. Roosevelt was such a gambler.'
Did he get lucky? Actually, FDR had serious problems with helping Imperial England out of her difficulties. He had written Hiltler a reprimanding letter, but Hilter just mocked the president about his peace loving voters. That must have made FDR angry.
-
'Should he have run for a third term?'
I admire him for doing so. He was concerned about his country's interests globally. Tackling that problem in 1940 was equally challenging as the problem in 1932. He could hardly go with 'happy days are here again', but he could try persuading his countymen to lend the neighbor the garden hose to douse the fire. Surely as president, he must have pondered, 'what's in it for us?'
-
What do I think of the book? I'ts very interesting. it's well written, and introduces us to a bunch of fascinating characters. The weakness for me is that there is almost too much material to absorb, so after I read it, I don't remember well what I have read. This is why I haven't had more comments.
About Roosevelt: this book shows why I could never have been President: making important decisions that will determine peoples lives with too little information, and that not clearly pointing a direction. I think he did as well as anyone could have.
I will always fault him for refusing to allow Jewish refugees from Germany to enter: we could have saved thousands of lives. Another book I read claims that he did know about the camps, even when the public didn't, and that Eleanor begged him to let the Jews come, but he listened to a State department official who was anti-Semitic, and persuaded him it would be a security risk.
But I don't feel we will ever really know how much he understood about the issue.
-
I have never been much of a fiction reader. I guess that for me nonfiction is just too real and interesting to waste the time with some author's ideal of reality. There was an exception in 2005 when I read an led Seniornet discussions of the Razor's Edge" and "The Moon and a Sixpence." For these discussion I associated with Elouse de Pelteau, a long term discussion leader from Canada. "The Moon and a Sixpence project was particularly satisfying because we actively compared the fictional Artist in the novel to the factual Paul Gauguin as he appeared in his own writings such as "Noa Noa" and other biographical writings about him. I think this discussion was completed just before our seniornet/books association terminated to be reborn as seniorlearn. Both are archived in the 2005 archives. In 2007 I see their was another Moon And A Ssixpence discussion by another DL.
-
OH do think we can adequately analyze the man based on thoughts from an author's viewpoint - to comment on FDR from this book I think is only a fraction of what FDR was trying to protect in seeking a third term - There were as many then trying to dismantle Social Security as there are now and many in the high income bracket trying to bring back on open market that would favor the wealthy over opportunity for a middle class - Also, who was in the wings to represent what was achieved if he did back out - He appeared to be a man for our times that made us what we became for the next 50 years till another charismatic leader made significant changes - had the law not been in place I bet Reagan would have also had at least a third term.
-
In the crossword today, was a clue: in what president's term was FDIC (that protects our bank deposits) started? I'd never thought of it before, but I knew it had to be Roosevelt. We have so many safeguards today that we take for granted and even while complaining about too much government, don't want to do without.
-
I will be back later, but in reading your posts, I must comment on one big program that FDR initiated and that is Social Security. Commentators and the news tell us that it is bankrupting the nation. And we get all these mailings from the AARP and various other organizations. Will it endure? For how long?
-
Well, this has been a fascinating book and discussion. I'm finally getting caught up (Have been reading James Michener's book, The Source, with another group--another interesting book)
Harold mentioned that Hitler declared war on America. I'd not known (or had forgotten) that, and I wondered why he did so. I asked the question on the internet and got this reply from Answers.com:
Hitler was not obligated to declare war on the US by virtue of the Tripartite Pact (between Germany, Italy and Japan). As noted in the Pact "...if one of the Contracting Powers is attacked by a Power at present not involved in the European War or in the Japanese-Chinese conflict...."
The US did not attack Japan. As such the explanation (that Hitler was obliged to do so because of the Tripartite Pact) is incorrect.
If Hitler had not declared war on the US. it is highly unlikely that Roosevelt would have asked or the Congress would have approved a Declaration of War. US isolationist sentiment, a carry-over from WW1, still feared participation in another European War. More pragmatically, declaration of war on Germany would have meant a two-front war and stretched already thin resources. By not declaring war on Germany the US could have concentrated its scarce resources on a one-front war against Japan.
Hitler declared war on the US because in his view 1) the US was militarily impotent and irrelevant. The US Army was the 16th largest in the world--smaller than Belgium's army, but larger than Portugal's. Furthermore, any ability to bring US military or industrial strength to bear would take years to mobilize. As such, the US was irrelevant. The US represented no risk/threat to Germany. Hitler had nothing to lose-or fear- by declaring war on the US. He did have something to gain.
2) Hitler hoped that by declaring war on Japan's enemy (the US) that Japan would in turn, declare war on the US. Thus, forcing the Russians to fight a two front war and drawing off Russian forces on the eastern front by keeping sizable Russian forces locked up in Siberia/Asia. By December 7, 1941, Germany was already encountering strong resistance in Moscow and Stalingrad.
Marj
-
Yes immediately on Monday Dec. 8, 1941 the congress declared war on Japan. As I remember it there was only one negative vote in the House. I'm not sure about the senate. This left the U.S. uncertain about Europe. Fortunately on Dec 8th, Germany and Italy declared War on us. They had made it easy for us to formally declare War on them the next day.
-
As to Ella's question about our impression of FDR, I'm afraid I'm still influenced by my parents' opinion. My mom cried when he died. She and dad were so grateful for his making it possible for them to buy their first house because of the FHA loans. I did think he went overboard, tho,' in thinking he could stack the Supreme Court.
Ginny is reading MY LUNCHES WITH ORSON by Peter Biskind, about Orson Welles. Per the author, Orson said that FDR used to say "You and I are the best actors in America." I want to read Jean Edward Smith's bio of FDR.
Marj
-
I remember my grandmother crying as she hung the clothes out on the line too, Marjifay. The woman next door had just told her that the President had died. It's really interesting to hear of the adulation - did that come after the war started? Since I was a baby in the period we are discussing, I have no memory - except that my family didn't seem to be experiencing hardship...my father built a big new house in 1940. We got a new car at the same time.. We weren't rich. My father had a job - an advertising agency. Apparently business was good - people must have been buying the advertised goods...
Were most Americans helped by the New Deal? This book indicates that by now (1940) people were tired of it, disillusioned? Social Security - people must have welcomed that? Or was there controversy. Can someone explain the New Deal - who was helped by it? I(I understand that this is a huge request and don't really expect a huge response.
Since I have no memory of the early years before the war, it's exciting to read of this period as FDR, Congress, the isolationists all battle for public opinion. I suppose things haven't changed that much. The years go by, 1939, 1940 and now into 1941. Of course we know what's going to happen...but at this time, our entering the war is not a done deal.
Lynne Olson presents the scenes the American public is not privvy to ...using diaries and other records to show what is going on out of public view. We don't often get such inside information.
-
Another question while I'm at it - you might have some insights. The isolationists who wanted a negotiated peace between Britain and Germany - how would that have worked?
-
Peace between Britain and Germany, no way, JOANP. With Churchill as prime minister and with Hitler ruling all of Europe? No way.
Here in brief are your opinions on FDR in the early days of our discussion:
Regarding F.D.R, I see him at this stage as the professional politician poised in planning mood at a time of intense International activities. - Harold
The isolationists and the interventists and their lobbying seemed to render him incapable of making decisions. I wasn't aware of this before. - JoanP
Only a leader who could extend his vision of national self-interest to the belief that a union of free people was the real defense against totalitarian aggressors would wager on Britain at such unattractive odds. Roosevelt was such a gambler.' - Deb
Leading a reluctant democracy into a necessary war poses impossible challenges. In the end, historian Stephen Ambrose concludes it was "Just Dumb Luck" that helped the president out, with help from his enemies. Jonathan, via Stephen Ambrose
President: making important decisions that will determine peoples lives with too little information, and that not clearly pointing a direction. I think he did as well as anyone could have. JoanK
I did think he went overboard, tho,' in thinking he could stack the Supreme Court.- Marj
THANK YOU ALL SO MUCH FOR THOSE OPINIONS. SO FASCINATINAG TO READ THEM. I can't begin to respond to all, I'd love to be sitting in a chair in a group where we all are, but this is pretty good don't you think?
-
Personally, I was surprised in reading these first seven chapters. I was left with the opinion that Roosevelt was rather weak and indecisive - he was too intent on public opinion - which might, but not always, be a good thing. I think a good president, or leader, has to do what he feels is the right thing after listening to many advisors, regardless of the dissidents, the media, the public. It took an attack on the country for him to decide, although the lendlease program must have been a boon to England.
Lindbergh came to the rescue in several ways. He gave General Hap Arnold valuable informataion about Germany's air force which enabled Arnold to build up a strong force before the war and Americans got busy building planes. An older sister of mine got a good paying job at Curtiss-Wright factory which built
planes. See a short - which probably appeared in MovieTone News at your favorite theater.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9MqykOHS8Lk
-
During the war we knew and accepted the leadership of FDR but more we were by then a confident nation again and everyone down to the young kids did their part so we all felt it was our war. Where as when FDR was first in office we were a sorry lot in this nation.
So I think the domestic issues is what affected people -
My son-in-law's family would not be what it is without the CCC - many of our Parks in Texas still utilize the cabins and stone buildings built by the CCC in the 30s -
He protected peoples money in the banks - made housing possible creating both the FHA and later the VA putting returning vets into homes and allowed them a college education -
There was the WPA that repaired and built cinder and tar roads where there had only been dirt trails - and in NY the WPA gave artists opportunity - I think it was the WPA or maybe the PWA that built the Golden Gate Bridge and the biggie - Hoover Dam.
SS was a big one - just before it was official it was common for siblings to be hauled off to court to support parents who were often wanting to stay in their home and the kids decided they were too stubborn to move in and help with the grandkids most often because their meager income could not support two houses.
The farmers were helped with the AAA and the newspapers made a big deal over the crops that had to be plowed under in order to even out the market. There was also the Farm Credit something or other established. And a Soil Conservation that planted millions of Trees to keep the mid-West from blowing away.
The TVA -Tennessee Valley Authority controlled the river and brought electricity to South.
Big and small business were up in arms on all of this - conservatives were still in control and attempted to stop what was happening or ridicule the programs. There was a wrap around cotton housedress - very inexpensive, with no buttons or hooks and eyes - few zippers existed at the time - to return the downplay by conservatives the women called these dresses their Hoover - not after J. Edger but Herbert who they blamed for getting this mess started and saw conservatives as followers of Herbert Hoover who deserved the higher income tax they were complaining about.
Do not remember who or how but somehow Politics stopped some of the farm subsidies - However, FDR did more to get the average Joe back on their feet and allow them to believe again that this was a land of freedom and opportunity. We looked forward watching the time to hear his radio messages every week. He calmed and then my memory was when he inspired this nation.
Some of my memory was direct and much of it was the talk around the table later during and just after the war - when aunts and uncles and grandparents visited - a visit always included, if not dinner than the desert, always brought by the visitor and mom made coffee, and dad went with his covered beer pail to get beer. The pros and cons of what was happening was the topic of conversation after we were caught up on what was handmade and how the gardens were coming along. In fact that was always part of the visit, going out to look at each others rows of vegetables and fruit trees. In summer and fall a visit quickly turned into a long long walk so that they youngest ended up on the shoulders of my father and my uncles. The conversation always ended up with the pros and cons of yes, the Kaiser - not FDR but the Kaiser - not Hitler but the Kaiser and the similarities between FDR and what the Kaiser did or did not do.
-
We must, we need a discussion on FDR alone, his life from birth on. MARJ mentioned one, does anyone else have a good one to discussl? We have questions to answer.
FDR and the Jews? I've read in the past (way in the past) the view that FDR, having just pulled the USA from the worst depression ever, feared Jewish immigrants taking scarce jobs - industry was just starting to improve. I know Eleanor begged him to allow more immigration - it's hard to believe he was anti-semitic as he had appointed Henry Morgontheau as his Secretary of the Treasury. Morgontheau did the following:
"Once confronted by the Holocaust, the Allied Powers reacted slowly. In 1943, Morgenthau's Treasury Department approved the World Jewish Congress' plan to rescue Jews through the use of blocked accounts in Switzerland, but the State Department and the British Foreign Office procrastinated further. Morgenthau and his staff persisted in bypassing State and ultimately confronting Roosevelt in January 1944. He obtained the presidential creation of the US War Refugee Board in January 1944. The Board sponsored the Raoul Wallenberg mission to Budapest and allowed an increasing number of Jews to enter the U.S. in 1944 and 1945; as many as 200,000 Jews were saved in this way." - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Morgenthau,_Jr.
-
BARBARA, I just read your post. It caused chills, so many people lived in fear of poverty and there were homeless people that went from home to home asking for food. They came to my grandmother's house and she always found food for them. We've talked of this before.
I agree with JOANK that the book is detailed, hard to remember after you have read it, that is why we have it sectioned off, so just skim the first seven chapters the first week, etc.
God save America from British rule:
Stand beside her and guide her
From the schemers who would make her a fool" (pgs.49-50)
Smile, smile!
Are we still a nationalistic country, antielitistic?
Being from the midwest (farm country) I would say yes, perhaps a little,
What about you?
-
Comparing FDR and the Kaiser!! That could make for a lively discussion. I've been meaning to post a request for information about a good biography of FDR. Perhaps one on the Kaiser would also be interesting.
Talk of comparisons, I would be inclined to see one of FDR and Hitler. Strange that these two giants of the 20th century took office in the same year, and then died in the same year after twelve years. What a contrast. Both had visions. Working within the Constitution was just too much of a handicap for the president.
-
An aside - Jonathan to understand the Kaiser is to better understand the Prussians - I am reading Iron Kingdom: The Rise and Downfall of Prussia, 1600-1947 - it tells us how Churchill used the end of WWII to rid Europe, the Brits, French and Russian's ancient nemesis, Prussia by wiping it off the face of the map. Competition in Europe had problems with Prussian success and they feared the future success of a united Germany taking over Europe as they had that fear for several centuries -
Today, the controversy among Germans is loud and mixed so that some are even saying Hitler embodied the Prussian character - for heavens sake the man was Austrian. My take is they threw the baby out with the bathwater because like many groups of people there are good and noble aspects as well as, ideas that must have been whispered in ears by night crawlers from Hades.
One of the good is Prussia was the most literate nation state in Europe and generations of families sent their sons to Universities all over Europe. However, their history is they started more wars and won more wars than any nation in Europe. On the other hand the Hessians helped us win our Revolutionary war.
Remember back when the rational for keeping Black folks down was their brain was less developed than that of a white - well that erroneous concept fueled an attitude - that kind of irrational thinking is close to the long held attitude that emanated from Europe (during the 30s we were more a European people) about the Jews - the hatred towards Jews had many so called causes but long held was, they dominated anything that had to do with Trade and in Europe when the middle class was trying to establish itself during the 15, 16, 17th centuries, the complaint was the Jews left no room since the middle class is created by having a foothold in trade.
Various purges were started over just that and the Pale in Russia, keeping Jews corralled was over limiting their domination in trade. I am not suggesting any of this is right. Only saying that it can more easily explain FDR's attitude along with the attitude of many in this nation - like the song in South Pacific - you have to be taught, carefully taught - and in the 30s there were many groups who we were taught were less and we should fear. Heck when walking we would give a Chinese laundry a very wide berth - we were taught they captured and boiled children to make the starch used in men's collars.
-
I'm having the same trouble as JoanK: the book goes into so much detail, and mentions so many different people (rightly so) that although it's clear enough as I read it, I have trouble remembering it.
Has the book changed my opinion of Roosevelt? Not much. I always saw he had plenty of warts as well as doing some magnificent things. We're certainly seeing him at a low point here. His attempt to pack the Supreme Court was outrageous. The reaction to this scared him, and he was being pretty defensive, not trying to push for anything he didn't think he could succeed at. So he stalled on things he knew were important.
On a slightly different tack, I found this bit especially striking (p. 108):
"[Attorney General Robert] Jackson..believed that roosevelt 'had a tendency to think in terms of right and wrong, instead of terms of legal and illegal. Because he thought that his motives were always good for the things that he wanted to do, he found difficulty in thinking there could be legal limitations on them.'
In his memoirs [Solicitor General Francis] Biddle noted that FDR never seemed particularly troubled by violations of civil liberties:'it was all very well to be liberal, but you must not be soft.' That was especially true in wartime....'If anything, [Roosevelt] thought rights should yield to the necessities of war. Rights came after victory, not before'"
Then we move on to J. Edgar Hoover.
-
To be honest, if I picked up this book and tried to read it myself, I'd have put it down by now. Can there be such a thing as too much information? So many names. It's almost like reading the phone book - EXCEPT for the real life drama that is going on! - For or some of us, reading about the pre-war deliberations for the first time this is exciting! Listening to the shared memories of those who lived through the period...consciously...that's exciting. I think the book is a good example of what a group discussion can do...transcends the book into a whole different dimension.
As I think about Roosevelt's "warts" - his procrastination...his willingness to let the American public duke out the pros and cons of going into the war, I'm coming to the conclusion that committing the American people to war was not a decision to enter without much thought, without carefully considering everything... Could he have been too careful? Clearly, he understands Britain's plight - feels his hands are tied to even send old destroyers. He used all his powers to loosen the restrictions of the Neutrality Act. But putting boots on the ground? Do you get the feeling that is his real hestitation? By actively supporting Britain, sending escort ships - that would be actively supporting Britain against the Germans - that would result in "shooting" as one of those many names commented.
Where would your vote be at this time? Would you be an isolationist or an interventist? Where would your vote be if you had teenaged sons?
-
The Book Club Online is the oldest book club on the Internet, begun in 1996, open to everyone. We offer cordial discussions of one book a month, 24/7 and enjoy the company of readers from all over the world. Everyone is welcome.
August Book Club Online
THOSE ANGRY DAYS by Lynne Olson
Roosevelt, Lindbergh, and America’s Fight Over World War II, 1939-1941
| (http://www.seniorlearn.org/bookclubs/angrydays/angrydayscover.jpg) |
".............the definitive account of the debate over American intervention in World War II—a bitter, sometimes violent clash of personalities and ideas that divided the nation and ultimately determined the fate of the free world. - The New York Times
“In Those Angry Days, journalist-turned-historian Lynne Olson captures [the] period in a fast-moving, highly readable narrative punctuated by high drama. It’s . . . popular history at its most riveting, detailing what the author rightfully characterizes as ‘a brutal, no-holds-barred battle for the soul of the nation.’ It is sure to captivate readers seeking a deeper understanding of how public opinion gradually shifted as America moved from bystander to combatant in the war to preserve democracy.”—Associated Press |
| DISCUSSION SCHEDULE: |
| August 1-7 | Chapters 1-7 |
| August 8-14 | Chapters 8-14 |
| August 15-21 | Chapters 15-21 |
| August 22-28 | Chapters 22-28 |
Discussion Leaders: Ella (egibbons28@columbus.rr.com) & Harold (hhullar5@yahoo.com)
-
DETAILED - DIFFICULT BOOK! I know we are all interested in the subject of the pre-war WWII history, so may I make a suggestion or two.
1. If you stick to the reading schedule in the heading, put postit tabs in parts that are new to you. That way you can review and post on those parts quickly.
2. Let's all try to put page numbers of the book when we post. If we can. Some of our comments are not relayed in the book, but we can try.
-
PATH quoted SG Biddle "....'If anything, [Roosevelt] thought rights should yield to the necessities of war. Rights came after victory, not before'"
So what do we think of this, is it different?
"On this day in 2001, President Bush signed the USA Patriot Act, an anti-terrorism law drawn up in response to the attacks on the Pentagon and World Trade Center on Sept. 11, 2001.
A summary of that act which I believe is still in effect:
Opponents have cited its authorization of indefinite detentions of immigrants; "sneak and peek" searches through which law enforcement officers search a home or business without the owner’s or the occupant’s permission or knowledge; the expanded use of "National Security Letters," which allow the FBI to search telephone, e-mail, and financial records without court orders; and the expanded access of law enforcement agencies to government records, including library and personal financial records.
The act also expanded the definition of terrorism to include "domestic terrorism."
-
JOANP Would you be an isolationist or an interventist? An excellent question and I don't we have answered it fully yet. Definitely I would bean an isolationist; however I think an American President needs to tell public the HONEST, COMPLETE TRUTH. Vietnam? Did the public know the goal of that war?
We are not a stupid people, but we need all the info to make a proper evaluation. I would have to read FDR's radio addresses to understand if he told the public the truth.
I know George Bush did not when he put "boots on the ground."
-
ON A LIGHTER NOTE! Listen - Vera Lynn sings - A NIGHTINGALE SANG IN BERKELEY SQUARE! How very lovely. She sang this song many times during WWII. YOu will love it. (the composer was a member of the BSC, British Security Coordination)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xTeiYN_Vq6E
-
Wonderful. Vera Lynn herself was Britain's nightingale in those dark years. I can also hear her singing: Wish me luck as you wave me goodbye.
Af all the troubled times to be president of the United States. FDR is always ranked very high among the great presidents. But this book also shows how controversial he was, and perhaps still is. His critics will point out that President Bush taking the country into war in Iraq was taking a page from FDR's book on how to use the office of president.
'Trouble remembering', the detail of the debate. Me too. So many arguments. So much trouble reconciling the complexities, contradictions and perplexities of democracy in action. I agree. We should all keep that vote in mind.
A very thought-provoking post, Barb. Imagine having ones country's history burdened by a character like Hilter. A hijacker of states. Germans thought of themselves as missionarys of kultur, like America brought democracy into the world.
-
I don't see how Olson could tell the story she wants without a lot of detail. And I'm learning a bit more about some names that were kicking around in my childhood. So I try to remember the overall flow and the more important names.
-
I've got a copy of Jean Smith's FDR. Only two references to Charles Lindbergh, compared to a score or more on Missy LeHand. So who was more important to him? But allow me to quote from the book, page 437
'The battle escalated on September 15, when Charles Lindbergh, one of the country's sentimental heroes, addressed a national audience at least as large as that which had listened to FDR's fireside chat twelve days before. "This is not a question of banding together to defend the white race against foreign invasion. This is simply one of those age-old struggles within our own family of nations - a quarrel - a quarrel arising from the errors of the last war- from the failure of the victors to follow a consistent policy either of fairness or force." '
Who is the statesman here?
-
Barb, you did something I didn't expect; you actually got me to read some of Mein Kampf. I looked at the link you posted, started reading randomly at Chapter IV, and almost immediately he is talking about how the German population needs more room for preservation and expansion, and why economic and other means aren't the right path--the only way is to acquire more land--European land. At this point he is talking of going East toward Russia, not West. He says that men are willing to fight to the death for preservation of their race, but not for mere economic means.
It's not as clinically insane as I assumed it would be, but it certainly isn't an easy read: convoluted, hard to follow sentences and arguments, and not very logical. It's sort of fascinating, though. I'll read more if I get the time. I'd really like to know how much of his eventual program is in there.
I can't believe most people struggled through it, but surely the people in governments whose business it was to know what Germany was up to must have read it.
-
Oh my heavens, I am trying desperately to catch up on my reading the book chapters & the posts. I have finally gotten through the first assigned chapters and am wondering....am I the only one here that is seeing so many similarities in this FDR second term to today's Obama's second term presidency. I know I am fairly new to politics due to my age and timing for getting into following politics in the 70's, but seriously, I can not believe how the underhandedness, manipulation, breaking the law, using the IRS to intimidate, wire tapping individuals and the press etc., etc. was going on as far back and probably before the 1930's and remains the news of today's administration.
Holey, moley......I want to slap myself and say, wake up!!! I also see how America and the news can be obsessed with a person one minute, and then turn on them and make their lives a living hell. Lindberg was the man of the hour when he made his transatlantic flight, and now that he does not fall in line with FDR's agenda he is being scrutinized as a fascist, anti American and pro Nazi. This is so very scary, knowing the power any president has over our privacy while they are trying to advance their own private agenda. They pass laws only so they can break them or use them to further their personal advancements, regardless if it is indeed what is best for our country.
Oh Mamma Mia, I need a Valium!! :o Okay, I am going to take a break, then come back and try to read through the posts to catch up. Just needed to check in and vent a bit.
Ciao for now~
-
bellamarie, ....am I the only one here that is seeing so many similarities in this FDR second term to today's Obama's second term presidency. I thought I was!!!!!
On page xiv of the Introduction, Olson writes: (In 1931).....Lindbergh was the only person who could match the ....president in national popularity. They were alike in other ways, too. Both were strong-willed, stubborn men who believed deeply in their own superiority and had a sense of being endowed with a special purpose. They were determined to do things their own way, ...slow to acknowledge mistakes and did not take well to criticism. Self absorbed and emotionally detached, they insisted on being in control at all times."
(Certainly sounds like my impression of the current (Edited:) president president's temperament and personality!)
The farther I read, the more I could see how accurate these descriptions were - and why the author may have chosen to compare these two national figures in her narrative.
In this book, we're looking at attitudes and decisions (or lack thereof) leading to WWII - not the social programs initiated by Roosevelt nor the aeronautic accomplishments of Lindbergh.
-
ah PatH that was the views for Germany long before Hitler - they wanted to get all the emigrated Germans back home and the German home was to be the lands included in the fist Reich that most define as Charlemagne's Holy Roman Empire.
We may think that is crazy but then were we in the US crazy for wanting to accumulate all the land between the oceans regardless who lived there. I think it is too easy for us to view all that proceeded WWII through the eyes of the holocaust - to separate that out seems as if we are as horrific in our thinking as those involved and yet, to understand what was important to Germany I think we have to see that they were humiliated after WWI and wanted not only economic stability and then growth but their national pride and like it or not we have to factor in the history that was paraded with standards and staffs in nearly every parade that harkened back to the Roman influence that was Charlemagne's Empire.
It was probably the same thinking we attribute to the far right who do not want to see the make up of this country change with so much non-European immigration and with the equality to whites, mostly of European decent, with not only race but gender, gays and certain religions. Many would suggest our involvement in the middle east is hubris and our relations with Central America are and were hubris - the only difference we are not after the land masses as we were in the nineteenth century. But then, we too minimized the importance and rights of the Native American just as Germany did for people other than Germans.
Not trying to justify - only I do not think it is crazy - knowing what we know and living in this country during this century we can be shocked or put ourselves in the shoes of those we are reading about and disagree but see it as behavior that led to disaster - then we can feel guilt all over again about what we did to the Native Americans ;).
-
In this book, we're looking at attitudes and decisions (or lack thereof) leading to WWII - not the social programs initiated by Roosevelt nor the aeronautic accomplishments of Lindbergh.
Which means that for both men, we are leaving out their most magnificent achievement.
-
We have now finished our discussion of the first seven chapters and tomorrow we will move on to the second week assignment that will include Chapters 8 through 14. I was impressed at the intensity of our first week that included some 100 posts filling 2+ full discussion pages. Good Show all of you!
Tomorrow we will move to the week 2 schedule that includes chapters 8 – 14. They discuss a number essential points some of which are hard to extract from the maize of detail included by the author. Some of these in my opinion include in Chapter 8 the extent of British Intelligence operating in the United States and particularly in Washington and New York quite openly with the full knowledge and approval of the Roosevelt Administration. Further the existence of the pro interventionist efforts of the New York City elitist club know as the Century Group (Chapter 10), and the discussion in Chapter 9 about the real threat that the Churchill Government would fall and a new Government probably headed by Lord Halifax who would conclude a negotiated Peace with Hitler. These and other points of your choosing will make an Interesting week.
-
An aside........I am saddened that one of the nation's great newspapers has recently been sold to Amazon founder, Jeff Bezos. The Washington Post. Who knows what will be the future in regards to newspapers.
In the past, we have had two nonfiction discussions in regard to the Post, one was Katharine Graham's award winning book - PERSONAL HISTORY. She and her family owned the Post. The other book was A GOOD LIFE by Ben Bradlee, editor of the Post during the Watergate scandal.
They can be reviewed here:
http://www.seniorlearn.org/bookclubs/archives/nonfiction/PersonalHistory.html
http://www.seniorlearn.org/bookclubs/archives/nonfiction/GoodLife.html
-
Ella, I can see the day newspapers and magazines are a thing of the past. I have a subscription to Sports Illustrated, Good Housekeeping and Ladies Home Journal and they have more pages of ads then information and are half the size of pages than what they used to be. I'm surprised they are still in business. I don't even have a subscription to our local newspaper. I can so easily read any part of any newspaper on-line and not have the mess of papers laying around my house needing to be recycled.
-
I said this already in The Library:
The Graham dynasty bought the Washington Post the year I was born, and made it the quality newspaper I've read all my life. Signs of trouble have abounded in recent years: downsizing, staff buyouts, a larger and larger fraction of the paper only appearing online, etc. Sometimes I feel like I'm only getting half what I paid for in my print edition.
But it's shocking to think of it being sold, and losing the family dedication to, and love of, the newspaper.
What will happen now? Bezos bought the paper with his own money, and the price is small compared to his worth. He is not obligated to anyone to show a profit, and he is a person with a lot of patience, willing to run something for long-term goals, not worrying about this month's profits. So he can make what he chooses of the paper, and I can only hope that his goals overlap what I want in a newspaper. I especially hope he doesn't skimp the investigative journalism. This is getting cut everywhere, and it's an important safeguard for our freedom--the knowledge that someone will probably uncover your dirty tricks if you try any. I hope he keeps up the quality of the paper, doesn't use it too much to support his own views, whatever they are, and doesn't transfer too much of it online.
I wait with trepidation.
-
Politics and Prose has weighed in about the purchase of the Washington Post, and they aren't hopeful:
http://www.politics-prose.com/ (http://www.politics-prose.com/)
-
Regarding newspapers I expect that most of the large city newspapers will survive but probably not in the traditional print form. This expectation is based on my experience reading the digital Wall Street Journal over the last several years from a computer, or best from a tablet preferably with a 10 inch screen (I pad, android or other Os). This method allows the reader to select the best type size for him. The reader has full control scanning the issue section by section, article by article, reading what he chooses, saving what he chooses. Gone is the mess of waste paper, and the hassle for suitable lighting and reading position. With the WSJ back issues are available for 2 weeks. I intend to subscribe to the local San Antonio Express in this form when my current print issue runs out.
Regarding the "Good life," by Ben Bradley, That was the first book that Ella and I worked together as co DL's. It must have been back in the late 1990's. We have probably done near 15 book discussions since then.
-
Chapter Eight - THE ART OF MANIPULATION - recounts all the "dirty tricks" used by different organizations (particularly the BSC) to influence Americans - push them into war. With the knowledge of FDR and J. Edgar Hoover, propaganda was planted in newspapaers. The coluumnists who helped, who believed in the cause are such familiar names - Drew Pearson, Walter Lippmann, Walter Winchell, Dorothy Thompson. (p.120)
This opened my eyes: "Although the opening of others' mail was illegal under U.S. law, the FBI, following British instructions in the technique, ,,,,,,,,examined correspondence .........the policy of opening mail for supposed national security purposes continued until 1966...... (pg. 119)
Now that is OUTRAGEOUS!!!
Dirty tricks have been around a long, long time and continues I'm sure. By governments, by individuals and the like.
Do you think there are dirty tricks on the Internet? Have you uncovered any? Rumors, gossip about national affairs, government officials? Are Americans aware of dirty tricks in the past and attempt to look at news warily? LOok at both sides of an issue?
-
It was a good book wasn't it HAROLD and it was the first book we DL'd and we almost got Ben Bradlee online for an interview and although he tried, he didn't know how to use a computer.
I Like that big, black type you have, so easy to read. We can't get that on our pc can we? You are using a Kindle?
How many of you have Kindle's or similar?
-
DIRTY TRICKS:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dirty_tricks
Note what Thomas Jefferson did- politicians will try anything, it seems, to win.
-
I’ll begin this week’s discussion with comment on Chapter 8. That concerns the extent of the British diplomatic mission in 1939 Washington DC. In addition to the conventional Embassy conducting regular embassy diplomatic functions there was another super corporate agency with a mission that turned out to be considerably broader. This group headed by a Canadian named William Stephenson, was much broader. Over its first 18 months, in the words of our Author “it would declare war on Britain’s enemy in the U.S. whether German, Italian, Vichy French or American Isolationist’s.” This mission would do whatever was necessary to silence American Isolationist groups and bring the U.S. into the war. This mission at its peak employed over 1000 mostly British andr Canadians. It went about its task with the full knowledge and support of President Roosevelt and the FBI and its head J. Edger Hoover.
I see this as an early indication that Roosevelt early on realized the danger posed by Hitler and his Nazi government, but politician that he was and knowing the 1939-40 isolationist mode of the Country, he made no effort to curb these operations.
-
Ella, Dirty Tricks reminds me of the new book Disinformation By Lt. Gen. Ion Mihai Pacepa and Prof. Ronald J. Rychlak - the book revels the secret strategy for undermining freedom, attacking religion and promoting terrorism. The lies that were put out by this secret branch of the Russian Government are beyond anything i could imagine and we bought the lies hook line and sinker - Often they were not directly put in publication where it was ultimately expected to do the most harm but by way of world wide connections the lie worked itself to where the damage was aimed. These outrageous lies are in our belief system to this day.
So far I have only read the sample provided to Kindle owners and have not yet purchased the book but as you know the samples on Kindle generous. One of the amazing things to learn is that Glasnost is an old, if not ancient word in Russian and has a different meaning to Russians than to us - we were hooked in thinking Gorbachev was not a prelude to Putin. The way they blackened the reputation of Pope Pius XII about his so called blind eyes to the Jews during WWII is astonishing and even I still believed that lie today.
And now with this revelation by Lynne Olsen's research you have to wonder if we are any better than the serfs during the Middle Ages who simply did the bidding of their masters.
-
I don't see how Olson could tell the story she wants without a lot of detail. And I'm learning a bit more about some names that were kicking around in my childhood. PatH
Oh I agree, Pat. I'm enjoying the names, too - those that I recognize. Stirring some memories. Some of them I remember AFTER the war. They kept on going for many years afterwards. Do you remember the National Book Festival you and I attended on the mall in DC? - we listened to an author, who spoke of Frances Perkins. Can you fill in the blanks? Who was that author, what was the book we were discussing here that brought us to DC to listen to this author? I enjoyed seeing meeting her in this book - the Labor Secretary at this time, who remembered poor Henry Wallace getting booed...I think I'm getting ahead...to chapter 13.
-
I wish I was as optimistic as some, regarding the future of the Washington Post under Jeff Beznos. Too cynical for that...guess I am more in agreement with Polictics and Prose. A funny coincidence to open to Chapter 8 this morning and see David Ignatius quoted (p116) describing in the Washington Post, the British emissary, William Stephenson's (think James Bond), activities in the US as "a virtual textbook in the art of manipulation."
I really think news and how we regard - investigative reporting will change tremendously if/when we convert to digital sites all over the Internet. Does that concern anyone else?
-
Yes, yes, yes...dirty tricks throughout history, Ella, but somehow I feel let down by the President, who gave the appearance of staying neutral, waiting for the American people to weigh in with their opinions before he would act. But as Harold says, "British intelligence was operating in the US openly, with the knowledge and approval of the administration." William Stephenson was sent from London to gather information on Britain's "enemies".., which included all isolationists. So, if you spoke out against entering the war, in any capacity, you were regarded as the "enemy" - not only in Britain's eyes, but also in your President's.
-
JoanP, the author you're thinking of is Kirstin Downey, and the book is The Woman Behind the New Deal--a really good book. She was very gracious to us, and although she was moving and traveling a lot at the time, answered some questions as our discussion went on.
-
Yes, Joan, that book was about Francis Perkins. She had a hand in getting the New Deal passed. A lot of shenanigans were pulled between her manipulating the press and FDR having his second bill hidden away in the desk, expecting the first one not to go through.
Oh dear more underhanded, law breaking, and total disregard for constitutional and civil rights trampled on, all through chapter 8. It really does make me realize how this country and others have been as bad as this and worse I suspect through out all of history. I seriously don't think there is one president that held office who did not have dirty hands vying for power and political popularity among Americans and other countries.
I get the feeling FDR all along intended to enter the war, he just had to wait until he was comfortable he had the will of the people and the proper weaponry.
-
Yes, FDR definitely saw the danger and evil of Hitler, and felt we would at least have to provide heavy support to those fighting him, and probably have to join the fight. I wonder, given the isolationist mood of the country, how should he have handled this?
-
Three or four years ago Ella an I led discussion of her Biography, "The Woman Behind the New Deal", by Kristin Cowney. I certainly remember this book and though I have forgotten many of the small print details I certainly remember well the major pattern of her administration and the then prevailing pattern of the Roosevelt administration. The sub title of this book was "The Woman behind the New Deal. She deserves much credit for many of the landmark achievements of the first two terms of the Roosevelt administration including Social Security, and Workman's Compensation. Also I remember from this book an account of the informality and confusion regarding inauguration of the new President and his cabinet. For example the New secretary was unknown at the Labor Depth Office when she arrived at her office the next morning.
-
I remember quite well the deal with England that sent 50 WWI Destroyers it England. The deal is covered in several chapters of this Week's assignment. It did not come easy. The problem was that Roosevelt wanted to attach it to provisions that would assure that the Royal Navy ships would be sent to Canada in the event England had to make peace. Also Isolationist felt the U.S. might need these ships if an English peace treaty.
Finally a deal was concluded transferring the 50 destroyers to the Royal Navy in exchange for U.S. Naval Bases on several British Islands in the Gulf of Mexico. These 50 old ships were used by Britain in their anti Submarine battle an the North Atlantic where they proved valuable despite their age and poor seaworthiness. Several were credited with sinking German submarines, and all participated Convey duty attacking Submarines keeping them deep and rescuing survivors of torpedoed ships.
I suppose the U.S. still operates the bases granted by that treaty.
-
Regarding Pat's question, I wonder, given the isolationist mood of the country, how should he have handled this? Perhaps considering the extreme isolationist mood of the Country F.D. R. didn't do bad in handling the situation as it existed at the time in 1940 after the surrender of France with England besieged alone in its island bastion. What F.D.R. did I'll call "playing it by ear." That is he did what he though he could get away with, without upsetting the Isolationist majority too much. As time passed as the evil of Hitler's Nazi government became more apparent and England's impressive defense continued, he found he could do more, until by the summer of 1941 he had the U.S. Navy involved in convey duty combat in the Atlantic west of Iceland.
Yes I too believe F.D.R. believed from early on that the U.S. would end up as a belligerent. As a politician He knew in 1940 that the Isolationist American public would not accept American combat at that time. The truth is that the great change in public opinion in just one year is really remarkable and the U.S Navy was engaged in actual combat conveying ship through the western Atlantic.
-
Thanks...yes, Kirstin Downey's book on Frances Perkins and the New Deal...now I remember. Which brings up the subject of the New Deal again. Is the New Deal Roosevelt's primary accomplishment - for which he will be remembered? Does anyone remember Ms. Perkins? As I read of the President's reticense, his hesitation in taking any position that might be unpopular, I wonder if this wasn't his style of leadership from the start. Didn't he push Frances Perkins before the public with what he knew would be unpopular proposals and let her face the music alone?
-
Who can listen to Winston Churchill's oft repeated "We shall never surrender" speech without getting goosebumps? I still do. Rather crushing to think that he didn't believe it at the time, because he didn't have the means to fight the German army, ten times what Britain had. After he conveyed this to FDR, the Presidnet made an inspired speech at the U. of Virginia...promising to provide whatever it would take to assure Britain's survival, he did nothing. He knew he had nothing to provide. There were no propsals before Congress...
"considering the extreme isolationist mood of the country..."
Harold, when did this turn around - the great change in public opinion in just one year is really remarkable" When Paris fall to Germany? Is this event what it took to rouse American public opinion? I felt so sorry for Anne Linbergh, caught between her mother's and her husband's belief in American aid to Britain. Where did that leave Anne when the interventionists claimed - "anyone who opposed the war was an imbecile or a traitor?" Perhaps this difference of viewpoint, within families was typical? Does anyone remember this argument around the dinner table at the time?
-
JOANP, I get the same chills just I read Churchill's "We shall fight..................................." speech. What a great leader Britain had in the man. If they had retained someone like Chamberlain, all of us today might be living in a different world. Just think for a moment if Hitler had won all of Europe, N. Africa, etc. where would he go next? You got it! With Britain's navy and subs he would be over here in no time and we were not prepared for it.
We all have Churchill to thank (my opinion). He and FDR, who might seem weak and dependent upon public opinion in these chapters, but got America up and ready to fight in no time when we were attacked.
HAROLD is the better historian. But I think all through the last few centuries England was noted for her Royal Navy so it is almost laughable that FDR proposed that England send her navy to Canada or the USA for safekeeping. Really! (pg. 127)
JOAN, I don't remember much about the years before the war or any arguments then. As the book states - "Most people in the United States had little knowledge of the countries previously vanquished by Germany." (pg.130) We knew no one that had ever been overseas nor did we have an idea of the countries involved. We did look at maps and globes after we were in the war, but remember we had just recovered from surviving the depression.
As for Anne Lindbergh, I, too, have sympathy; but today's women would have found a way to address their own opinion on such weighty matters, don't you think? Friends, letters, something!
This whole chapter - CHAPTER 9 - asks the question:
IS THIS WAR OUR CONCERN? Don't we all ask the same question today?
-
Well I am breaking down and getting this on my kindle - it is too good to pass and the library says I am now moved to 3rd from 5th on the reserve list - with the electric bill out of the wazoos this month I can afford this like a hole in the head but I will conserve in another way.
-
Barb, I'm grateful for your sacrifice. I think you won't regret it; there's so much good stuff in this book, so many details. I want to know your thoughts after reading it.
Ella:But I think all through the last few centuries England was noted for her Royal Navy so it is almost laughable that FDR proposed that England send her navy to Canada or the USA for safekeeping. Really!
Indeed, the British attitude towards seafaring is almost mystical. Go back to Francis Drake and Nelson, or if you really want to dig, go back to the Old English poem The Seafarer, in which the speaker , although he ends up describing the importance and comfort of faith and the afterlife, really just wants to be back on the ocean, freezing his tail off, and risking death in horrible gales. Of course every boat in reach would zoom over to Dunkirk to help take off the troops. And of course no one would even consider sending off their ships to some other country.
-
Good, BARBARA, that way you can follow along with us, chapter by chapter, section by section (see schedule in heading).
FDR was Secretary of the Navy at one time so I'm sure he knew the pride of England in its Royal Navy history, don't you, PAT? Dunkirk, what a gallant effort and how brave the English people were to carry on in the middle of the blitzkreig while we remained safe on this side of the Atlantic but the war was not our concern
General George Marshall (who will always be remembered for the Marshall Plan after the war) were opposed to sending any of our small number of weapons to Britain because we needed to build up a force here at home.
What a dilemma FDR found himself in - so many views coming at him from all sides and from people he respected. I would have lost my mind.
Speaking of English ships, it has always been a dream of mine to go across the Atlantic on a Queen Elizabeth cruise ship, but I think I would be bored after a day and night of it. I was bored flying over the seas which took much less time. And I have no formal clothes at all.
-
What I hate about using the kindle version of a book to discuss is there are NO PAGE NUMBERS - at location 200 - whatever that means - to respond if Roosevelt wanted war -
It appears it is not war with boots on the ground that Roosevelt wants but arms to support England - It says "And it is far from clear that Roosevelt himself, while certainly determined to help Britain, ever intended that America go to war, at least in the sense of sending troops. Indeed, there is ample evidence, as the historians William Langer and S. Everett Gleason noted, that the president "recoiled from the prospect of war, was determined to spare no effort to keep this nation out if it, and devoutly hoped that, by one means or another, he would succeed."
My take is - Lindbergh was not a down and out isolationist - everything to him is about flying - He knows what plans can do and what will work in the air - he was right about the Air Force not able to successfully deliver the mail - he may have known how politics works but he was not a politician - I bet he simply continued to believe he knew more about what could happen in the sky than he thought Roosevelt knew.
I think he was a very pragmatic man. After viewing the strength of Hitler's air-force I think he thought his brother-in-law was foolish and the whole thing about going after Hitler and expecting to win was foolish so why spend your last breath and dime on a loosing proposition.
The first thing he does upon returning to America is to join General Arnold in an effort to build up our airpower - I think he saw we had no hope any longer of winning a war on the ground and he knew we were not ready - I am thinking Lindbergh and Arnold thought all the limited resources we have should be used to build up our own defense - We know from the book that General Arnold was protective of our few resources not wanting them to go to the British.
Except for the fever of the country where you were caste on one side or the other it sounds like Lindbergh had good intentions to protect American even if at the cost of throwing Britian under the bus and Roosevelt was not a gung ho protector of Britain - he thought by helping with arms would be enough.
-
The Book Club Online is the oldest book club on the Internet, begun in 1996, open to everyone. We offer cordial discussions of one book a month, 24/7 and enjoy the company of readers from all over the world. Everyone is welcome.
August Book Club Online
THOSE ANGRY DAYS by Lynne Olson
Roosevelt, Lindbergh, and America’s Fight Over World War II, 1939-1941
| (http://www.seniorlearn.org/bookclubs/angrydays/angrydayscover.jpg) |
".............the definitive account of the debate over American intervention in World War II—a bitter, sometimes violent clash of personalities and ideas that divided the nation and ultimately determined the fate of the free world. - The New York Times
“In Those Angry Days, journalist-turned-historian Lynne Olson captures [the] period in a fast-moving, highly readable narrative punctuated by high drama. It’s . . . popular history at its most riveting, detailing what the author rightfully characterizes as ‘a brutal, no-holds-barred battle for the soul of the nation.’ It is sure to captivate readers seeking a deeper understanding of how public opinion gradually shifted as America moved from bystander to combatant in the war to preserve democracy.”—Associated Press |
| DISCUSSION SCHEDULE: |
| August 1-7 | Chapters 1-7 |
| August 8-14 | Chapters 8-14 |
| August 15-21 | Chapters 15-21 |
| August 22-28 | Chapters 22-28 |
Discussion Leaders: Ella (egibbons28@columbus.rr.com) & Harold (hhullar5@yahoo.com)
-
I can also see this book is only talking about 18 months in our history - so this entire book is the national diary of 18 months.
During that time, as uncomfortable as it makes us, this country was not whole sale supportive of the Jews - from what those of you have shared here there were some areas that did not discriminate - I only saw the discrimination even after the war - not as bad but bad enough to a movie to be made to help us see ourselves.
As to his non reaction to Kristallnacht - again, I think he was a pragmatic man who as the books says he was "Uninterested in moral questions" - he had not repore with journalists and did not engage except for the one he spoke to before they left for Europe. Since a child he was a loner and I think that was his character so that pleasing or displeasing the public never occurred to him. He was flabbergasted receiving the medal and if Anne saw it as an albatross I do not think he was stupid however, I do think he thought he could still be a loner through it all. I think it was not a political myopia but a part of his character where there was no room for gossip only action. He was NOT a politician.
Sounds to me like the newspapers aligned him on a side that I do not think he was on any side except from what this author shares - Britain threw Czechoslovakia under the bus - and none of the Europeans put the effort into bringing their air-force or their ground troops into readiness - Looks like Churchill couldn't even bully his own country into self preservation - in that malaise I can see how Lindbergh, a Yale graduate, who readied a flight over an ocean would see the discipline in Germany even if he was only shown what Goering was proud of that showed the German readiness and might. Neither Britain nor France showed him anything.
If Roosevelt was not such the Politician and only reacted on what he observed and was told be those stationed in Europe it is a wonder he did not agree to go to war and it is a wonder he helped them at all. But he knew he had to keep someone like Churchill as on our side - Churchill reminds me of a loose canyon that could have done us damage.
To read this book in light of what we know happened is putting a layer over the story as it is being told - I think we have to get into it as if we were watching any period movie.
Reading I am picking up that those opposed to the war were not from the same mind-set as Lindbergh - I think most of them were reacting emotionally and Lindbergh, who was described as being like Roosevelt with very little emotion, was thinking pragmatically.
I can also see how Roosevelt picked out Lindbergh as the nation's major threat - he was wrong over the mail delivery debacle and his ego needed to be right - again, I think that went over Lindbergh's head and with his father having been in Congress, he knew intimately the halls of power so he took on Roosevelt in the same assured way he took him on over the mail delivery.
And I think other than his ego fight with Lindbergh, Roosevelt was cautious because again, he did not want boots on the ground and yet, he did not want Lindbergh to have another win.
It was easy for Ickes to talk - he was a politician where as Lindbergh was not and Ickes talked to the one person who wanted his ego messaged to help him feel superior to Lindbergh and finally Lindbergh made an error so the war between them in Roosevelt's mind may have been somewhat assuaged.
-
It is almost laughable that FDR proposed that England send her navy to Canada or the USA for safekeeping.
Oh I agree, Ella! How could he have made such a proposal? It is almost as puzzling as Lindbergh's idea for Germany or Britain to negotiate peace between them! No way could that have worked!
Yaay! Glad to hear you are able to concentrate on the years leading up to the war now that you see where Lynne Olson's research has focussed, Barb. You say you don't have the page numbers.. would it help if we referred to chapter numbers in our comments? I agree with you about Lindbergh's "isolationist" views. Not as simple as it appears. It stands to reason that he would not want to see us enter a war, in any capacity, knowing that we are not ready to do so. Build up our defense, and THEN go to Britain's aid seems to have been his position.
IS THIS WAR OUR CONCERN? Don't we all ask the same question today?
We still seem to have the isolationist/interventionist struggle today - except I see liberals espousing the isolationist point of view - and the conservatives the interventist. Am I wrong?
ps. Ella, I once dreamed of crossing the Atlantic on a cruise ship - on the Queen Elizabeth. Not so much being dressed up, feasting and dancing -so much as sitting swaddled in a blanket in a deck chair with a good book. Somehow with the recent cruise accidents and illness outbreaks - the desire is gone.
-
I've been reading about the Century Group in Chapter Ten this morning - the proponents of Intervention -
"the rich, overeducated Easterners who still dote on Europe."
It's been mentionedd here before how the East Coast and Middle America seemed to share different views on whether we should enter the war. Is that oversimplifying?
To me, it is reasonable to conclude that those living on the East Coast would have been more concerned about German attacks on the Atlantic seaboard than those living inland. As time went on, this was a reasonable fear. Still standing all along the coast are the watchtowers used to keep lookout for submarines offshore. I've seen them recently in New Jersey, Delaware, North Carolina... I wonder why they are still standing. Would be easy enough to take down, and oceanfront property is quite valuable.
(http://shorebread.com/content/images/War%20World%20II%20Watch%20Tower%20Fire%20Bethany%20Beach%20DE.jpg)
Across the Eastern Seaboard of Delaware, 11 cylindrical concrete towers rise above the coastal plains and marshes and overlook the Atlantic. The towers were created between 1939 and 1942, used as watch towers during World War II, and expected to stand for only 20 years. 70 years later, the towers are still upright and still tell a chilling story.
-
Back later - start this weeks chapters today - I too had no idea of Roosevelt's big gaff that rendered him brutum fulmen
-
I think that what we see in FDR's governance during the 18 months between June 1940 and December 1941 is not so much reticence in his policy toward the war in Europe as it was a politicians recognition of the feelings of the majority of American public. Again FDR recognized the future danger of a victorious Hitler in control of the whole of Europe and the danger it would pose to the US in the future. Yet he could not ignore the great isolationist majority so he did what he reasoned he could by sending war supplies including the 50 WWI destroyers and by the fall of 1941 he sent the US Navy to convey English and American cargo ships bound for Britain as far as Iceland. At the end of her book (we don't want to go there right now) she notes FDR's reticence during this period and contrasts it with his bold determined leadership both during the early years of the New Deal, and after Dec 1941 as the President of a unite United States at war.
-
Yes let's talk some about the New York city group known as the Century Club. I had never heard of it. As I understand it dates back to the post Civil War period. I certainly recognized some of the late 19th century names mentioned in our book particularly Frederick Law Olmsted who made a per-Civil War saddle trip to Texas. I have an Interesting 1950's publication of this book. He traveled alone from Louisiana through rural East Texas spending each night with at some rural homestead. He did not like the corn centered meals his hosts provided and had little good to say about Texas until the got to German settlement of New Braunfeles just 35 miles from San Antonio. There for the first time he was fed wheat risen bread. In San Antonio he gave an interesting description of the spring fed San Antonio water distribution center. He continued on to German settlements at Blanco and en route shot a bear on Ciblolo creek that today is well within the San Antonio northern limits.
-
Before I leave what you had discussed last week - that seventh chapter is wild - everyone including Dreyfus is mentioned. It reminded me of a kids puppet play with characters popping up and down, in and out saying their lines so quickly no one could possibly figure out the chaos.
Chapter 8 starts by telling us war is no longer about the inner and outer perfection of the warrior - As described by Evola - "...offering ordeals that transform the knowledge of life according to death - war as a noble undertaking to awaken the hero who sleeps within - justified the moment the individual succeeds in living as a hero. War makes life the law of 'more-than'life', and thus war has an anti-materialist value, a spiritual value." He goes on to say the results of this war is "when humanity no only harnessed the ability to extinguish itself, but also began to face the prospect of becoming lost within ever-multiplying machinery of our own creation. With no significant political forces opposing the conversion of our world into a universal marketplace, the conflict of our time is the struggle to retain one's humanity in an increasingly artificial world."
Evola may have seen machinery breaking down the human control of the traditional attitude and behavior over and beyond political squabbling but, Churchill through Stephenson shows us that Machiavellian attitudes and behavior was all inclusive coercing man, woman and child to his great plan to get this nation to save his country. Where was he and Stephenson in Britain doing their coercing during the years preceding WWII when Lindbergh noted their laid-back lack of concern to fortify and build a protective war machine much less have the ability to honor their treaty with Czechoslovakia.
Don't you hate learning we've been duped...sorry - I know I should read this as a historical observer but my respect for Churchill just dropped into the basement.
-
Harold Isn't Frederick Law Olmsted the one who designed many parks including Central Park in NYC - I thought he lived his life before the WWII years - and from the date you are suggesting that he visited San Antonio I am anxious to get to the part where he is mentioned - his portrait and paintings of some of his garden architecture is in one of the upstairs living areas in the Biltmore House in NC. My grandsons brought me there at Christmas time for a tour a few years ago.
-
Our author notes that members of the Century Group who were editor, columnists, radio commentators, and publisher had the greatest impact on American public opinion and that their involvement blossomed into an unapologetic advocacy for intervention raising serious questions about journalistic objectivity and balance."
Of course the news they reported certainly impacted public opinion. But their work brought them in every day contact with the news giving them a wide window through which to view and access the true nature of the world situation. The were calling it as they saw it. I see no issue of journalistic objectivity here.
-
Barbara, Frederick Olmsted was a 19th century landscape architect famous as the designer of NY's Central Park. His Texas visit was in the 1850's.
-
Yes, just finished the chapter and can see now how his name came up - there is something in the back of my mind about this group called the Century Club - somehow I knew but cannot remember how or where I read about them.
What I found fascinating is looking up the book written by Herbert Agar - Who Owns America on Amazon it is redundant to copy and past but read the Editorial Review - it sounds for all the world like today on all counts.
http://www.amazon.com/Who-Owns-America-Declaration-Independence/dp/1882926374/ref=pd_sim_b_32
-
I am still in shock and angry having read about how professionally we were secretly duped - I had no problem when other groups tried to influence but this so professional from another nation and actually showing forged documents with such secretiveness - that to me is the killer - I am having a difficult time getting past that. And we thought WWII was the last honorable war - huh sure...
-
Still have chapter 14 to read - chapter 13 was a good chapter in my mind - it told us something - many of the other chapter sound more like the old magazine True Confession or an article by Luella Parsons filled with names and who went to what affair and what club and who is friends of what power broker - not exactly what I imagine from a book of history - this author is sure making Roosevelt into a secretive, manipulative and weak man - his big ego seems to be replaced with manipulative power control.
I do not know why they teach us honesty and fair play when we are in school - looks like very few people in business, politics, Journalism, the law, the government or the armed services play that way - I expected a lot of back room politics but holy Hannah never to this degree - it is all about who you know. I guess that is why the current president wants to take his agenda to the American people - taking a page out of either Wendel Wilkie or maybe he is also a Roosevelt.
Looks like it would behove me to simply shut off the TV - it is all a propaganda tool and long after I am dead given the length of time since these events and this book we will know some of the truth - I say some because now i doubt we ever get the truth. Talk about a lesson in disenchantment and this was not supposed to be a gotcha book - although so far the Pubs are not coming out as bad so maybe the author does have an agenda writing this now -
-
JOANP: I had no idea that the East Coast had watchtowers although it made sense before WWII - wasn't there a submarine sighted on the coast during the war? I suppose the expense of tearing them down when there are no complaints is why they re still standing. Thanks for the picture - I like the picture!
You are right in stating that middle America and the East Coast had opposite views on entering the war, I think our book and common sense makes the reasons clear. America is so vast, sometimes its amazing we all stick together in times of conflict.
Speaking of which I have been amazed at our country being able to fight two wars (the present Iraq and Aghanistan) with all volunter soldiers.
BARBARA - "I do not know why they teach us honesty and fair play when we are in school - looks like very few people in business, politics, Journalism, the law, the government or the armed services play that way " I think that is exactly why we have books such as this - to expose the corruption, the dirty tricks - to teach us the real world of politics, the real world of our past.
I also agree with you our author uses the stories of individuals (endlessly) to emphasize the issues of the day, but THE ISSUES are KEY in history. It would be rather dull with just statements of facts. I am reminded of a good history teacher who divided her class into two groups and had them research and debate the issued of all the wars we have been through beginning with the Revolutionary War. Controversy teaches.
I remember all of this - or most of it - and even most of the people described therein. My age showing?
p.s.Barbara (edited) I read the editorial to the book. " The ideal was nothing other than the original American Dream: the majority of men should be politically and economically independent, not the dependents of either big government or big business." So ideal, so impossible!
-
The Century Group - I've never heard of them either, HAROLD Perhaps, it is because we do not live on the East Coast?
They are still around , interesting. http://www.century-group.com/ - one of the oldest and most exclusive clubs in New York.
The East Coast old boys' network. I imagine they are chagrined when an author exposes them in a book, or do they care. A bit like that house in Washington, the Presidents' Club, we discussed in our last book, can't think of the name of it.
Seven members had occupied the White House, six more on the Supreme Court, thirty seved in the cabinet by 1940. (Chapter 10) - "men of the country, rather than party." Nice to know.
Over and over in the book are the names of newspapers, those who write for them, those who own them, editorials, etc.
SO WHAT IS GOING TO TAKE THE PLACE OF NEWSPAPERS IN OUR TIME? If it is the Internet, how will we determine which site to read? Will there be the pros/cons we are accustomed to reading?
-
YOO-HOO!!! YOO-HOO!!! CALLING ALL INTERESTED PARTIES, POSTERS, PLEASE SIGN IN WITH YOUR COMMENTS, WHETHER OR NOT YOU HAVE THE BOOK
-
TIME, LIFE, FORTUNE - Henry Luce, Clara Boothe Luce. I've read books about both, bios. Energy-driven, political influences, the Alsop Brothers.
An aside - I have had some great teachers in my life. One was an English Lit. teacher who introduced her students to many books, magazines and publications by taking 10 minutes at the end of every class to read to us. One of those segments was in TIME - I was so intrigued by it that I have not been without TIME magazine since -
"NEW YORK Is NOT AMERICA, WALL STRET IS NOT AMERICA. BROADWAY IS NOT AMERICA..PARK AVENUE IS NOT AMERICA, THE INTELLIGENTSIA ARE NOT AMERICA - TIME IS EDITRED FOR THE GENTLEMAN OF iNDIANA." ....Henry Luce (and Ohioians)
BARBARA - I was not shocked or disturbed by the information that Great Britain (and other countries) use propaganda to influence Americans, particularly during this period before WWII. England was desperate. Propaganda, in all forms, has been around forever - used so successfully in our own country (think elections, think recruitment, think advertisements, for heavens sakes, think the Internet)
Of course, Churchill used underhanded means to get help for his country, probably used any means he could, he was a wily,clever politican, as was FDR. They were well matched. I don't Lindbergh was anywhere near their equal, except in courage, and knowledge of aircraft.
-
In the 1940-41 Years San Antonio had 3 Newspapers published by two national companies. These were the San Antonio Express with early morning delivery, and the San Antonio Evening News , afternoon delivery. The other paper was the San Antonio Light also with afternoon delivery. The Light was a part of the Hearst national chain. The Express and Evening News I don't remember its National owner, but the words "Script-Howard" Comes to mind. During the period I generally had access to all three , but I don't remember much reading from either because I found Life Magazine and Time much more interesting. In act the only specific item I remember today from either of them was a cartoon, doubtlessly republished from their corporate owner. This was just after the conclusion of the WW I destroyer/Base trade. It showed the fantail of one of the ships at sea with a battle scared stars and stripes being lowered. The caption read,"Aye, tear her tattered ensign down, and give her to the British."
Regarding "Time" today. The print today is so small I have trouble reading it even with my glasses. Yesterday I tried to connect online. I downloaded the "apt" for the I-Pad, But after going through the initiation routine setting a up pass word connection, it refused to recognize my newly set password. I called the 1-800 Time help line who attempted to help me, but in the end gave up and advised me to call Monday.
-
I haven't caught up yet, am almost through Chapter 12, but here's my take on all the propaganda. Each side was working as hard as they could to push a course of action that they genuinely thought was in America's best interests. The means were not always fair. We see mostly the actions of those in favor of aid to Britain, so we know more about their tricks, but it's obvious that there was vigorous isolationist activity and propaganda too.
The good thing about America is that both sides get heard. We may not have all the facts, but we get a lot of them, and make up our own minds.
-
A curious election for his third term. That was the last time a president would have that option...
FDR is tired, intends to retire. The author tells us that Eleanor thinks he's bored. Bored!? But he runs anyway rather than see an inexperienced, though popular Wendell Wilkie win the war.... What do you remember of Wendell? How close did he come to gaining the presidency, calling for immediate Intervention?
Somehow you have to do something extreme to be heard, PatH. What I'm getting from this book - whoever controlled the media, the press, movies, etc had the advantage, the attention, the ear of the public - not so much influence from congressional action, as from the Press. (Oh yes, the political cartoons, Harold - they were memorable - and influential, as you demonstrated!) And the Interventionists seem to have that advantage. The funny thing, whenever polls were taken, the American public, though wanting to aid Britain, did NOT want to declare war on Germany. I think the only thing the Isolationists had on their side was that great fear of getting into a war with Germany.
As frustrated as people seemed to be with the President, his inaction really reflected the mood of most Americans, didn't it? Is he leading or is he waiting for the American people to lead him? In hindsight, do you think he was wise to wait it out?
-
Finally caught up on the reading. What an interesting story of the complete reversal of public opinion. It seems to take forever, reading about it, but it was actually a short time for such a change.
And Roosevelt reminds me of (was it Ghandi?) who said something about having to hurry and catch up to his people so he could lead them.
I like all the stories of people who parade across these pages. They are all names I remember hearing in my childhood from my mother.
-
I understand propaganda - however to down right lie and to falsify papers that are then offered as originals - it is not just this time in history although, I am despondent to learn how great this so called propaganda (a biased or misleading nature, used to promote or publicize a particular political cause or point of view.) - it still goes on in spades today -
Two side, no - frankly I think the opinion of Lindbergh was ridiculed by condemning the man so that we had only isolationists and the propaganda machine at the time.
As to the guys on the East Coast doing all the behind the scenes footwork - looks to me like they are the prototype for the army of lobbyists that run our government today.
And yes, I too like flesh around the facts to really understand history but again, this book to me is not just putting flesh around the story but it sounds like a Hollywood exposé - I realize there are many characters in this story that we do not know and they all need an introduction - and the tangle of characters is greater than in most current history however, the way they are described when they are behind one or another or how they do or do not support another is written in a way that to me sounds more like gossip.
At this point I am seeing a national newspaper to be part of the propaganda machine according to who and what views held by the owner - Realizing that if Henry Luce could influence our view of China he could use similar tactics to influence our views on any issue - To accept that we are only lied to makes me want to shut it all down and read the local papers about who died, who was born, what group is fundraising so their kids can go here there or where ever and how to save rainwater - news that is truthful. Folks like Snowden are heroes. All of a sudden i can really understand the Tea Party. Just shut the whole thing down - problem the only ones that do get shut out are those in need and the lying group keeps going like an Energizer Pink Bunny Rabbit.
Back East is an easy point-your-finger group however, I do not consider Louisville Kentucky back East - Having lived in Lexington for 12 years we chose the Currier Journal for our daily delivery and I have original art work on my wall done by the political cartoonist for the paper back in the 50s and 60s - we thought it was a superior paper to the Lexington Journal - ha - just superior writers that knew how to twist our minds.
Yes, this secret manipulation for a select viewpoint and outcome has my gut in knots - and yes, I am of the generation who thought they threw away the mold with Roosevelt - and so one more in my life that I admire that his only grace is he waited till the war mongers supporting Churchill did their job.
Could Britain have been saved without all the lying and deceit? I do not know because I cannot get a handle on what made the obstructionists tick - they were obstinate - was it all about power politics - that is the side of the story I want to know because, if it was all about power politics then that can explain Congress today as then and we can accept that we are no better then the monarchy we revolted against to form what I was taught was a more perfect union.
I just cannot accept that lies told is the only way to influence. And, if it is and folks can argue that it is then again, why are we not teaching kids to be more effective deceivers. At bare minimum it would be good to teach kids that people they admire will lie - sure pulls the rug out when you realize how true.
-
Barbara: "At this point I am seeing a national newspaper to be part of the propaganda machine according to who and what views held by the owner."
Yes, and sometimes for the government. Don't blame this book for this: it has been true forever, as far as I can see. That is why it's so disturbing that, with the decline of newspapers, there is only one paper in each city.
The same is true of TV news, of course. But it is easy to switch channels and get a different view.
-
Not blaming the book JoanK - the author is just bringing us what is factual - not crazy about the author's story telling skills but that is an aside...
I am dismayed to anger how people are used up and gobbled up if they do not go along with the perception of the media or the perception the media wants to tell - early on, the Journalist were not really interviewing Lindbergh to find out why he espoused what he did they just assumed his stance was based in the same emotional rhetoric they were printing that many in this country were emotionally believing. With that circus it is no wonder we had obstructionists come out of the woodwork.
Instead of writing to our Congressmen we might be better writing to those whose names we see on bylines not only in the newspaper but online news stories. In their efforts to sell a daily paper they whip up emotions without knowing or even wanting to learn the story. I see today foreign journalists doing a good job but domestic and even political journalists all appear to have their own agenda.
That aside - this propaganda machine - everytime I think of it I feel my gut contract and the energy zings out of my arms and legs. I can actually feel it - one thing to come from folks I could care less about or that I would even suspect because they have not seemed honest but when the folks you admire are really in my mind scum betraying our goodness and desire to be fair - our real desire to know real consequences and not a whirling blender of fear based possibilities as the only possible consequence if we do not do and believe what they want - sorry those are the antics of a child molester and so we are all being treated like children to be frightened into compliance.
-
You have to wonder at what point people realized the deceit. I've read a bit further in the book...don't want to give anything away and be a spoiler...but can't wait to see your face when you read of Britain's dirty tricks to get the US involved in the fray, Barb. The gloves are off! Whatever it takes when it's a matter of life and death.
Was anyone taken aback at Roosevelt's choice of VP for his third term? I'm really dismayed at the selection of some of the men who are just a heartbeat away from the Presidency. What are they thinking about? Surely not the electorate. And in these uncertain and perilous times to choose someone like Wallace!
-
Given that we now know the government influence is its source of power Wallace makes sense to me - he is from middle American - looks and talks like middle American rather than the patrician look of FDR - it really is all a show isn't it -
Well I still have chapter 14 and the remaining chapters to read so JoanP I am looking for some vindication here for what I see is a mass hysteria by the 'in' crowd to whip up the public and call it democracy.
-
I find it interesting how the author tends to easily switch moods between hawkish and Dovish moods in writing this section of the book (Chapters 8 -14). This is particularly apparent in Chapters 12 and 13. Chapter 12 concerns the passing and Presidential approval in the fall of 1940 of the first peacetime US military draft in US history. This certainly did not endear the President to the Isolationist voters who were then still a large majority. In Chapter 13 the author switches abruptly to the renew efforts of the Isolationist led by the America First Committee. This group still commanded the allegiance a significant majority of Americans
I take this as another indication of FDR’s ability to take political risk on issues he deems in the best interest of the country, though in this case the risk was substantially reduced by the fact that his principal opponent, a political novice named Wendell Willkie also harbored interventionist leanings.
In any case the wisdom of the draft law was proven 15 months later when the US finally entered WWII. In the summer of 1940 the total man power strength of the U.S. army was about 350,000 men. In Dec 1941 when the US entered the War just 15 months later, Army strength had grown to over 1,600,000 men in 36 trained divisions. Less than a year later in the Summer of 1942 it was strong enough to begin offensive operation on two fronts , In the Pacific (Coral Sea, Battle of Midway, the Solomon Islands; and also in North Africa. Considering all the facts, this was certainly a remarkable transition.
-
Yes, it was really fortunate for us that the draft passed. And interesting that Wilkie refused to make political hay from it. He probably sensed that if he were elected, he would have to do the same thing.
-
My mother (who was a Republican, and really disliked Roosevelt), hated Alsop and Drew Pearson. Whether it was their political opinions, or the fact that she felt they were dishonest. "They LIE!" she would say. She caught one of them in a lie (was Alsop the older one?) I didn't understand the story, but there was some situation in which he swore he had never met with so-and-so. Mom was working at the State Department Library at the time and saw the two of them having a quiet unobtrusive meeting.
-
Joan P. "We still seem to have the isolationist/interventionist struggle today - except I see liberals espousing the isolationist point of view - and the conservatives the interventionist. Am I wrong?"
I agree, today we have the progressive liberals who seem to have a viewpoint that we no longer should be involved in any boots on the ground combat on foreign soil. Then you have the conservatives who's viewpoint seems to be, we should show our strength in getting involved and help other nations for the respect and principle of remaining a strong nation and ally. My confusion comes when I hear we are providing our enemy with weapons to use against us. I, like I am sure the largest per cent of Americans, want peace and a world without war, but realistically there will always be some nation fighting amongst each other for religious or political purposes, so in reality there will always be civil unrest. While I do not think we should be anxious to send our military in to provide support to nations who will always be fighting each other over religion or power, I do think we need to be better prepared at home, just as Lindberg felt. I'm not sure if Lindberg was as much involved on a political stand point, rather his concern was more about us needing to build our air supply, knowing other nations were better equipped than us.
My personal opinion is, I feel today we may be finding ourselves in the same situation as in 1939 - 1940 where our military is thin, our weapons are few and our military budget has been slashed so much so that I do think other nations such as Russia, China and N. Korea may be stronger and more advanced. The past 5 years has weakened us due to overspending on programs that have not proven to be worthwhile, and frivolous spending on self interest groups and lobbyists. And when did we as taxpayers become responsible to provide the "first family" with their extravagant vacations and traveling the world? I can't even begin to understand how it's justifiable to spend the millions on transportation, extravagant hotels, fuel, secret service, etc., etc. so the president, wife and children can tour the world with numerous family and friends accompanying them. The millions spent for their fun and pleasure could make a difference in our preparedness for any future need for war, God forbid. Just maybe we need a Charles Lindberg today to stand up and make our president see that he needs to be better prepared. IMO
I am behind in my reading.....these details while interesting.....has tired me and made my reading a bit slow. I hope to catch up today since it appears we are having rain, which will keep me inside.
Ciao for now~
-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_military_deployments
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_military_bases
-
I liked WWilkie too - though I thought he was inexperienced...which may not have been a bad thing, after reading how experienced the insiders were inmanipulating Congress. A relatively young man, "with a Hoosier twang" - "a political amateur" as Lynne Olson describes him. A breath of fresh air, after reading what was going on in Washington. He had supported Roosevelt's New Deal...strong champion of civil rights. Did he really have a chance at defeating Roosevelt? In 1940, he called for immediate aid to Britain. I believe he would have acted on his principles, if elected. Would his decisive action have made a difference? Or was it Roosevelt's waiting for just the right moment prepare the American people for the hardship ahead?
JoanK, thank you for posting your mother's reaction to news columnists. A peak into the American public's reaction to the media's efforts to lead them. Refreshing to read of someone resisting the sheep mentality!
-
Hi. Problems with my computer at home are preventing me from posting. But that doesn't prevent me from reading this amazing account of America going to war despite the strong isolationist feelings. Now, of course, WWII is known as the good war. But it took all that propaganda coming out of the BSC offices in New York to convince Americans of the threat to their security. Very clever. Must have got the envy of someone like Joseph Goebbels. Will we ever know the truth?
-
One of the broadcasters, I think Drew Pearson, really didn't like Wallace. So he always referred to Wallace by his full name, drawing out the middle name (which was Agard) "Henry AAgard Wallace" so that it sounded like a deadly, sneering insult. At least I'll never forget Walllace's middle name.
-
Phew, just finished up chapters 8 -14 and with all due respect, I must say I think our Ms. Olson is a name dropper to the extent of trying to make these people more important than necessary. I can only imagine a writer deciding to write a book leading up to the decision of the Iraq war and them deciding to mention every elitist's name, poet, artist, reporter, magazine owner, newspaper owner/editor, their parents, etc., etc. I'm suspecting this book could have been half the amount of pages had all the name dropping been left out. Charles Lindberg has had so little to do with all these chapters, and even FDR other than him being president, has very little significance in these chapters.
BarbStAubrey, "I am dismayed to anger how people are used up and gobbled up if they do not go along with the perception of the media or the perception the media wants to tell - early on, the Journalist were not really interviewing Lindbergh to find out why he espoused what he did they just assumed his stance was based in the same emotional rhetoric they were printing that many in this country were emotionally believing. With that circus it is no wonder we had obstructionists come out of the woodwork."
My exact sentiments, and it is still going on today. The media has way too much power to build up or tear down any person, political figure or party. Why is it that Americans allow themselves to be so ready and willing to believe it because a reporter says so, or because it's in print? This book has certainly riled me up, call me naive, but I just didn't realize this has been happening for centuries. It's like each president, political figure or party just has to be in bed with the media and wham....they are all set and their opponents are trashed! Ughhh......I need to go relax
Ciao for now~
-
Chapter 13
So both conventions were surprises. Probably not many would have predicted the outcomes 6 months earlier.
Each man resorted to a lot of finagling to get it. Willkie's supporters launched a tremendous publicity campaign to get people to know who he was. Some of this was without his foreknowledge, by people who thought he would be good. Roosevelt played coy, then pulled a trick to sweep in at the last moment.
We'll never know what sort of president Willkie would have made. He looked promising, though not used to the heavy political machinations. Here he is on the campaign trail:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nm9ft5HXaUw (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nm9ft5HXaUw)
Is there a Hoosier accent?
The speaking style then, like the news broadcast style, was more understated than now, flatter and less dramatic. I kind of like it. Political speeches now all have the same braying rhythm; you could tell it was politics without hearing the words. It all sounds pretty artificial.
-
Bellamarie: in your message 230 above you raise question with answers s no one wants to contemplate. So rather easily the last congress did what they could get a majority to agree upon which was really nothing. They just can’t seem to agree on just who’s Ox to gore.
Regarding Wendell Willkie how he came from nowhere to win the 1949 “Republican Nomination from seasoned politicians like Thomas Dewey and William Taft is covered in our Book in Chapter 12. Though I was just 13 in1940, this was the first National election that I had now vaguely remember hearing the radio news and I may have heard some of the Radio broadcasts. Apparently Willkie had been the CEO of a large eastern utility corporation that been absorbed by the New Deal in the TVA project. His story became know to a prominent New York Journalist who wrote several Article published in “Fortune” magazine. From that point on, he rocketed to the Republican Nomination.
After reading Chapter 12, I now believe he would have won if the Election had come In August, but by November With Nazi Germany in control of all of Europe and England perilously close to defeat, the American Voters chose experience, electing FDR to an unprecedented 3td term. I think I too would have voted for FDR. At any rate I named Two newly hatched racing pigeons “FDR and HAD after the President and Henry Wallace the VP candidate.
-
HaroldArnold, "the American Voters chose experience, electing FDR to an unprecedented 3rd term."
Did you get the impression the people chose FDR due to his experience over Willkie? I felt he was chosen because Willkie agreed to the draft and since FDR did too, it was the simple stay with the flow vote. But then Americans are so easily swayed by the media, that had Willkie opposed the draft, I think Willkie would have won the election. pg. 217 "The Willkie speech was a godsend, "Stimson told an acquaintance the next day."
pg. 215 Even without the punches, the debates in both House and Senate were noted for their flamboyant combativeness. Burton Wheeler was particularly melodramatic when he described his vision of America under the thrall of peacetime conscription: "[N]o longer will this be a free land-no longer will a citizen be able to say that he disagrees with a government edict. Hushed whispers will replace free speech-secret meetings in dark places will supplant free assemblage...If this bill passes, it will slit the throat of the last great democracy still living--it will accord to Hitler his greatest and cheapest victory."
I thought this was very interesting as I read it, I paused and asked my hubby, what were the stipulations for being exempt in having to serve in the military as far as your religious beliefs were concerned. Why did Wheeler see this as the destruction to democracy? When countries are in conflict/war and your country does not want to be dragged into it, then you decide to make a move as big as passing a bill to enlist millions of men to train and serve during what is considered "peacetime" does it send a message to the leader of the other country he has won, by way of seeming to force you into making that decision?
This past week when our president decided to close all the embassies due to terror chatter, the news media was commenting on how his decision was sending a message to the other nations we are weak and can not protect our embassies, so in a sense the terrorist win by simply forcing him to have to make this decision. Would it be considered the "Greatest and cheap victory" as Wheeler saw the draft bill enacted?
I for one believe we must have a strong military, skilled and prepared to do combat, along with strong weaponry. I have two sons who have been fortunate to live through a no draft era, so I did not have to deal with the feelings mothers would, fearing the loss of their son having their number drawn and forced to go into the military and possibly go into combat. My husband lived in the time of a lottery draft, he chose to enlist in the United States Air Force. He was anxious and proud to serve his country. My brother in law's number came up and was forced into enlisting. He too, was proud to serve, but it was not his choice. Do you ever see the lottery draft ever coming back one day? It just made me really stop and think about how many men were drafted and may have not chosen to go.
pg. 217 Sept. 14, 1940 The Selective Service Act. Oct. 29, less than a week before Americans went to the polls, he stood next to Henry Stimson on the stage of the War Department auditorium. Flashbulbs from news cameras popped the blindfolded secretary reached into a huge glass fishbowl filled with thousands of bright blue capsules and retrieved one. He handed it to Roosevelt, who opened it and announced: "The first number is one-five-eight." A woman in the audience screamed. Her son and the more than six thousand other young Americans whose draft number was 158 would be the first ones called up to serve. War Department officials drew the remainder of the numbers to determine the order in which more than a million men-of more than sixteen million who had registered for the draft-would be inducted.
pg. 218 When America finally did enter the conflict in December 1941, the War Department had on its roster thirty-six divisions, numbering some 1.65 million men.
Suffice to say, without the draft we would have never been able to withstand the attack on Pearl Harbor/World War II.
Ciao for now~
p.s. Thank you Harold for acknowledging my post 230. I know sometimes I can post my thoughts, that no one necessarily wants to contemplate. :-X
-
OH, YES, BELLAMARIE, we are contemplating your posts - and all the others. What a good conversation we are having.
I just thought we are all so serious, perhaps we need a lighter touch. Listen to this sweet song purpoting to be about Alice Roosevelt Longworth, the eldest daughter of Theodore, and the secret/not so secret lover of Senator Borah, who is mentioned in our book several times. In fact, he is rumored to be the father of her child.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SICjgK3j6og
Isn't that lovely?
"Although Franklin Roosevelt was not, by Alice’s lights, one of the “real” Roosevelts, she thought they “could have had a lot of fun ... if only the damned old presidency hadn’t come between us.” She liked John F. Kennedy, even before he signed legislation renaming the House Office Building for the long-dead Nick Longworth. Joe McCarthy was an entirely different story. She cut short his attempt to first-name her by saying: “No, Senator McCarthy, you are not going to call me Alice. The truckman, the trash man and the policemen on the block may call me Alice, but you may not.”
-
The Book Club Online is the oldest book club on the Internet, begun in 1996, open to everyone. We offer cordial discussions of one book a month, 24/7 and enjoy the company of readers from all over the world. Everyone is welcome.
August Book Club Online
THOSE ANGRY DAYS by Lynne Olson
Roosevelt, Lindbergh, and America’s Fight Over World War II, 1939-1941
| (http://www.seniorlearn.org/bookclubs/angrydays/angrydayscover.jpg) |
".............the definitive account of the debate over American intervention in World War II—a bitter, sometimes violent clash of personalities and ideas that divided the nation and ultimately determined the fate of the free world. - The New York Times
“In Those Angry Days, journalist-turned-historian Lynne Olson captures [the] period in a fast-moving, highly readable narrative punctuated by high drama. It’s . . . popular history at its most riveting, detailing what the author rightfully characterizes as ‘a brutal, no-holds-barred battle for the soul of the nation.’ It is sure to captivate readers seeking a deeper understanding of how public opinion gradually shifted as America moved from bystander to combatant in the war to preserve democracy.”—Associated Press |
| DISCUSSION SCHEDULE: |
| August 1-7 | Chapters 1-7 |
| August 8-14 | Chapters 8-14 |
| August 15-21 | Chapters 15-21 |
| August 22-28 | Chapters 22-28 |
Discussion Leaders: Ella (egibbons28@columbus.rr.com) & Harold (hhullar5@yahoo.com)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BARBARA, you are angry that the media lies to the public, influences the public. How do we know what influences the public? Polls?
The vast PUBLIC - we do know, from reading books such as these, how our president made the decisions he did, how influences came to bear, but actually, in my opinion, is was Pearl Harbor that made FDR move and move quickly. Actions speak louder than words or print or TV.
HOW DO WE KNOW WHAT INFLUENCES THE PUBLIC TODAY?
-
JONATHAN, I hope your computer is working now, we have missed you We've read pages on this Lord Lothian, British Ambassador - "Americans lliked Lothian, and he returned the favor. Are you familiar with him?
There is a very strong attachment between America and England, difficult to understand considering we fought a war and won. I've often thought they must heave a great sigh to have lost this great land of ours!
But they had an empire - to what extent did their vast resources in the empire come to their aid at this time?
-
Ella, thanks for reminding me of Alice Roosevelt Longworth. She was a longtime prominent figure on the social scene here, regarded as by far the most amusing person around.
This Wikipedia article has some examples of her wit, mostly at the end of the last section, "Later Life".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alice_Roosevelt_Longworth (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alice_Roosevelt_Longworth)
-
Bellamarie, I do read your opinions, and though I'm not sure I've answered you directly, some of my posts have addressed issues you have raised.
-
Regarding the draft during the first year after its approval a lot of numbers must have been drawn considering the size increase of the army by Dec 1941 when War was declared. As I remember there was an increase of some 1,250,000 during this period.. Of course some of these were volunteers who joined both before and after the passage of the Draft Law. In 1944 my mother encouraged me to join the navy before my 18th birthday. I needed no persuasion. as most of my friends were in the Navy and I much preferred the idea of the armored hull of a navy ship to an Army fox hole,my billet had I waited until I was 18. As It was I arrived at the Pacific front at just the right time to avoid assignment to a ship involved in the invasion of Japan. So my navy assignment was back in the other direction on Ulithie and Guam.
Regarding the Willkie 1940 election campaign. I remember it from my reading as a continuing serious campaign for the office. I may have missed some comment to the contrary in our book I do not have a print copy of book marked with margin notes. I certainly have many highlighted notes on my Nook digital book, but it looks like I may have missed some key points in my post yesterday.
-
So much information in the book - generating so many ideas from our posters here. It's nearly impossible to respond to everyone's response to the book. We are all piecing together the story - what we remember from the past, or what we've heard about - and so much new information we're learning about for the first time. Our reactions are going to be different - depending on where we're coming from.
PatH - I sit stunned before my computer screen, listening to Wendell Wilkie. Isn't technology amazing? I got goosebumps, realizing that my parents were listening to this man, perhaps seeing the same newsreel in the movie theater. I can understand his appeal. He's a relief from the politicians...he's believable. Harold mentioned yesterday that he had been the CEO of a large eastern utility corporation that been absorbed by the New Deal in the TVA project. The people saw him as "a little average everyday man who stood up for his rights." That's what's important, isn't it - how the people saw him? They were the voters. I think he would have won - but for Hitler. There wasn't time to fill him in on all that FDR knew.
So that what it comes down to? Who do you like? Who can you trust? But how do you decide who you like and trust? We've seemed to conclude that you can't trust the media.
Ella asked an important question - WHAT INFLUENCES THE PUBLIC TODAY?
I hate to say this...but it's the media, isn't it? Where do you get your news? Fox? MSNBC? That's what forms your opinion, is it not?
-
For most of us, it's got to be the media in one form or another, since we don't have access to much first-hand information. I get mine from The Washington Post and The New York Times, both of them less than pure in this book. But I try to be suspicious, and to read what people I don't agree with are saying too, and to draw my own conclusions as best I can.
-
Today most of my News exposure comes from the two major Business Channels, Fox Business and CNBC. I rarely watch local news programs. I think that much of my news exposure (particularly local news) comes from daily dinner conversation with other Residents here at this senior's Independent Living Apartment. Also their is an excellent weekly Texas State news program on Saturday mornings that I general hear no local NPR radio.
Compared to many of you I might appear under informed but I think I do get a pretty good cross section of emerging National and International news from a nearly every day exposure to the two business Channels.
Question to all: do you think I put too much emphasis on my personal experience or memory in my posts on this discussion board??????
-
Doing great Harold - your experiences make this story - otherwise it reminds me of a Hollywood expose with as Bellamarie calls it 'name dropping'.
Must run downtown before the late afternoon traffic makes that trip impossible and when I return I have bunches and bunches - my reaction to Churchill had me by the tail where as similar tactics used by folks in the US to me were not as offensive.
What makes this so difficult as an RE Broker everyother year we take an oath preceeded by classes that "teach integrity because a person with integrity will behave in an ethical manner.
According to Webster's Dictionary, ethics is "the doctrines of morality or social manners; the science of moral philosophy which teaches men their duty and the reasons for it. It is a system of moral principles, a system of rules for regulating the actions and manners of men in society." Integrity is who you are; it comprehends the whole moral character and is the entire unimpaired state of anything"
To realize that many folks see RE agents as scum and here we have more controls to assure the public of our moral integrity where as we vote in leaders who seem to have the integrity of a killer whale for the ends they see as the solution.
I do agree with you Harold that Roosevelt learned his lesson - I think when he was first in office we needed the leadership of an Imperial President since the nation was in the pits - but his miscalculation of fixing the Supreme Court gave him his comeuppance and since he seems to want more than 80% of the public and the Congress behind him - in fact he is willing to hold out for 100% - drives those in a hurry crazy but in the long run we are united behind whatever the effort.
OK gotta run - back later.
{PS} I get most news from the NewsHour on PBS and from the Charlie Rose show with his indepth interviews.
-
PatH.....I think we all post drawing from our personal experiences, and memory. That's why it's so very interesting and exciting to read the posts. You all just amaze me, I truly enjoy our discussions.
To answer where do I get my news, on a daily basis I wake up to my local radio station and catch a few minutes before getting out of bed, then I begin my breakfast watching our local news channel CBS 11, and some of ABC, Good morning America. Throughout the day I browse the internet and click many different sites that provides breaking news, and updates. At 5:00 I turn on The Five on Fox, and at 8:00 p.m. I tape Bill O Reiley, because he is an Independent like me, and is not afraid to call out either party, politician or go after public influential people who are not doing their job. At 11:00 p.m it's my local CBS, ABC or NBC, which ever does not matter. On Sunday morning I generally like to catch ABC George Stephanopolis on The Round Table, I think it's called that. I do NOT watch any MSNBC because they are too liberal and one sided for me. I want news stations that are willing to cover the news, rather shove their personal opinions at me.
Journalism 101 taught the basic....Who, What, When, Where, How and Why. Not sure that is being taught any more by the way many of these reporters are reporting.
I am a political junkie, so I rely on as many sources possible to try to help me form an informed opinion. I don't have any newspapers delivered to my home, I go on line to read them. I also have a Facebook and Twitter account which my friends from all over the country post newsworthy links.
Ciao for now~
-
Harold, if anything you don't put enough emphasis on your personal experience. It adds a lot to this discussion.
-
Keep it up. What a moving experience, reading the many posts since my computer let me down a few days ago. It would be strange if this book did not bring out strong reactions, including some anger. Nevertheless, I find the book inspiring. The way Olson has pieced the story together (as JoanP expressed it) it's a great display of democracy in action, with so many citizens involving themselves in the process. Individuals, committees, clubs, letter writing, and on and on.
I'm happy to see Charles Lindbergh being rehabilitated. I don't see him as a loner. After he achieved celebrity status he was associating with the movers and shakers of the world.
Could the president have been conniving with the people running the 'propaganda machine'? Did I read that he was kept informed of the effort to influence public opinion? Hoover knew what was going on. We do know the story has a happy ending.
Ella, of course England was sorry to see her Empire shrink as the Colonies broke away. For a few more years she worried them on the northern border, but eventually established friendly relations. In the meantime she created a new Empire, even bigger, in India and Africa. Those amazing Brits.
And what an amazing president. Isn't he difficult to follow? Historians still aren't agreed on what he was up to.
-
OK I have dipped into several books to try and make heads and tails of this tale - Where to start...
Amazon samples for your kindle are often very very generous. The sample includes several chapters - a couple of hours of reading - That was my start - been fascinated with the work of Julius Evola and curious about the work of Francis Parker Yockey
Starting with Yockey - a political thinker imprisoned in 1960 where he was found dead - hints of murder - His first big book was Imperium: The Philosophy of History and Politics - To clarify and further this thesis he wrote - The Enemy Of Europe/The Enemy of Our Enemies - The book was lost and a German copy was recently translated - He talks about the economic and cultural winners and losers after the World Wars.
He says the Americans were the winners after WWI but we did not know what to do with the power and let it slip - then he says, using his first hand experience having lived for several decades in American - since what he calls the revolution of 1933 - (I guess he means Roosevelt's initiatives) - we have lost our idealism etc as we adapted an attitude of brotherhood, tolerating all, that is alien to a superior position dominated by stock from Cultural European soil keeping America a European Colony. The game plan is the heroic ethic 'is' the delivery of Europe to its mighty destiny. He suggests ways that American can become a part of this heroic ethic since we adopted toleration for all.
This is the attitude of Cultural European - an elitism, that I read into the NY based inner clubs for wealthy easterners. Their brotherhood is attending the 'right' schools. However, regardless their superior attitudes, rife through is their initiatives, which makes sense in light of how Yockey opens the first chapter - A great sentence that for me was enlightening - "All wars in some way are related to Politics, and the aim of Politics is to obtain power."
This book is like political theater with bit players creating 'bring-the-house-down' parts - and more, Olson brings out how folks with their agenda will attach themselves to who ever has the limelight, not staying on message but using their 5 minutes of light to alter an organization and make public their agenda.
So if the aim of Politics is to obtain power then jockeying for power among the powerful is part of the pre-war game.
-
Next I had a series of questions about Churchill - did he realize we squandered our power after WWI and therefore, we were naive making us an easy target to get what he could not influence his own people to do?
I know around the edges about Churchill but really did not know how he ticked - I forgot he was half American and wrote books about America - the one about the West receiving acclaim - I knew his mother, the American, slept with the King and his childhood was troubled but how did he come to think he could willy nilly get Roosevelt to fight his war and where was Britain before the war during the late 30s when Hitler was changing before our eyes from the opportunist with a talent for propaganda and speech, pushing German pride and making Germans capable of defending themselves against a French-imposed punitive peace into, a Messiah, marching on German historical territory, purifying the population to a fantasy race he called Aryan and focusing on eliminating the Jews as the historical cause of all European misery.
We know Chamberlain was attempting peaceful co-existence but what was Churchill doing - were his hands tied until he was Prime Minster - was that his only bully pulpit - what was going on in the shipyards and in factories regardless of the government - why was Churchill, the great orator not pumping up preparation among those in business. What was going on in Britain during the 1930s.
Started with Meacham's book Franklin and Winston - not much help - he showed them joined at the hip and shows the differences in their personalities but no mention of Roosevelt even aware of the BSC - I cannot imagine, except to keep a good face knowing this so called friend was hiding a group in your attic and basement to sway the household to your ends.
But I hit pay-dirt with The Last Lion: Winston Spencer Churchill, Alone 1932-1940 Churchill was rendered powerless during and after WWI having (as First Lord of the Admiralty) War Cabinet backing to go after a weak Turkey taking the Dardanelles giving Russia a supply route and a plan to break the stalemate with Germany. The captain of the ship froze and the campaign was a disastrous loss. Churchill was blamed - he went off to fight in France and came home to write books as his means of income. He had no influence in Parliament - no one would listen to him.
He did have a good friend in Frederick Lindemann who calculated the raw material on hand in Britain and the number of ships, tanks etc.
I've ordered The Last Lion: but only this volume - it is a three or four volume set. The book is a joy to read. Probably as many important figures of the time mentioned but not in the rat tat tat over the top writing style used by Olson. The chapters offered as a sample on the Kindle, stop before Churchill sets his cap on America - I am anxious to pick up the story when the book is delivered. (Got a used copy covered by Prime)
Then my second peg fits my questions about what in the world was freezing Britain into non-action.
-
Lo and Behold Lynne Olson wrote other books about this period and downloaded the sample to Troublesome Young Men - Its more about how Parliament works - how everyone knows everyone since childhood having attended the same Public (we call them private) schools ending up in either Oxford or Cambridge - That like school days, loyalty to the leader is sacricent. One member seems to act the whip not too unlike politics in Congress - the difference, members of Parliament have over their head if they rebel no Knighthood or other titles that can mean the end of their career.
So what Chamberlain wants Chamberlain gets except in 1940 with Dunkirk happening he wanted to take off for the usual summer recess and go fishing in Scotland. A young man from the district adjacent to his, Cartland - yes, the son of Barbara Cartland the bodice ripping novelist - passionately disagrees which leads to Churchill becoming Prime Minister. However, I did not buy the book to learn much more than Cartland rocked the boat and how they all play being loyal to the leader.
I am assuming the business elite similar to the Century Club group in the US must also have attended these same schools and they too would be loyal to Chamberlain
OK Jonathan help - I know you are Canadian but I bet there are folks you can quiz - why did the Ship Builders, Bankers and Arms Factory owners not start to stock pile - why were they leaving the Brits so vulnerable - why did they not band together to influence their reps in the House of Commons?
One other affect in the stew - evidently a revolution of country folks suffering in 1932 from poverty, more severe sounding than the US, were stopped on their rampage descending on London and their influence comes into play again before Britain is officially at war.
Now this book is beginning to make sense to me - I could buy the propaganda from the two sides of the argument among those in the US but a foreign nation influencing and so secretly - and the pomposity of someone saying they would get this nation in was rankling - had to find out what this was all about - I see now Lynne Olson likes to drop bombs without sharing the background that might make her bomb into a lesser explosion.
-
BarbStAubrey," Lo and Behold Lynne Olson wrote other books about this period and downloaded the sample to Troublesome Young Men - Its more about how Parliament works - how everyone knows everyone since childhood having attended the same Public (we call them private) schools ending up in either Oxford or Cambridge - That like school days, loyalty to the leader is sacricent. One member seems to act the whip not too unlike politics in Congress - the difference, members of Parliament have over their head if they rebel no Knighthood or other titles that can mean the end of their career. "
Nothing changes....no matter what country we are speaking of, these leaders, presidents and kings are groomed at birth. The families would get no where if they did not know all the "right" people, "right" schools ( almost always private), and the "right" ways to disregard the law, manipulate their people and have the media behind them.
I have always felt this to be true:
BarbStAubrey, "All wars in some way are related to Politics, and the aim of Politics is to obtain power."
Now this book is beginning to make sense to me - I could buy the propaganda from the two sides of the argument among those in the US but a foreign nation influencing and so secretly - and the pomposity of someone saying they would get this nation in was rankling - had to find out what this was all about - I see now Lynne Olson likes to drop bombs without sharing the background that might make her bomb into a lesser explosion."
Indeed she has been revealing and dropping bombs!!! ;)
I found this link today and thought it interesting since we are talking about presidents/power and dropping bombs....
http://watchdogwire.com/florida/2013/08/13/black-american-citizens-file-articles-of-impeachment-against-obama/
When do presidents/leaders go too far, causing harm to their own people and relationships around the world?
Off to read this week's chapters.
Ciao for now~
-
We discussed Troublesome Young Men here. It's a very good book, though, as in this one, there's a large cast to keep straight.
I'll be traveling for the next six days, but have my book and my iPad with me, and will often be able to connect (I'm in an airport now) so will be able to keep up.
-
Wonderful, BARBARA, this book seems to have inspired, or troubled, you to read on about this period of Britain/USA relationships.
We are now halfway through out book. Have we learned or has our memories been jolted! Mine has, so many names, I remember most of them, I was young, the possibility of war was in the news, we watched news films at the movies, talked among our friends and families, listened to the radio.
Before we go on, I want to take a moment to highlight the ears, eyes and legs of FDR, who as you all know was an invalid and could not travel. Besides Eleanor, FDR sent this man on many missions to gather information for him, he was a trusted "behind the scenes" loyal aide to the man who ran it all through those troublesome times.
HARRY HOPKINS:
(http://www.pbs.org/behindcloseddoors/tmp_assets/hopkins-bio.png)
We all know that FDR was an invalid and I am forever amazed at his courage, determination to continue his political life after polio when his wealth, his mother, friends urged to stay at home in Hyde Park. Unable to walk he was carried everywhere, and here at 84 years of age, I see my walker beckoning and find it somewhat humiliating, slowing me down.
-
And what an amazing president. Isn't he difficult to follow? Historians still aren't agreed on what he was up to. Jonathan
Oh yes, exactly my feeling, Jonathan! I've spent the morning rereading Chapter 14 and pouring over Barbara's posts (always amazed at your inquisitive mind, Barb) - We are the beneficiaries of your research. One thing really made an impression as I was attempting to follow Roosevelt's motivations -
"All wars in some way are related to Politics, and the aim of Politics is to obtain power."
Does anyone here really think that the US went into war to gain power? I would think that it was to defend our country, our borders.
Does anyone think that Roosevelt ran for a third term to obtain power? As the election drew near, he named two strong Interventionists (and Republicans) - Stimson, Secretary of War and Knox, Secretary of Navy...as well as the supported the unpopular conscription bill. That brought the mothers in huge numbers (in their black dresses, white high heels and gloves) to protest in DC. These unpopular measures were quite daring right before an election, weren't they? Does this sound like a man thirsting for power?
-
Posting together this morning, Ella! I'm trying to guess the name of the man on whom FDR relied - Grenville Clark? ...not sure.
You reminded me of FDR and his aversion to having his photograph taken in that wheelchair.
Some of his descendents at first objected to the plans to depict the president in a way that made it obvious he was sitting in a wheelchair, but most have since come to agree with the groups that support people with disabilities, who see Roosevelt as an inspiration.
The original statue at the 3 ½-year-old memorial shows him covered with a cape in a straight chair with two tiny wheels behind, but the new statue vividly illustrates how the four-term president privately dealt with his disability.
(http://www.inetours.com/DC/images/FDR/Wheelchair_1605.jpg)
-
Hi JOANP, we were posting together.
And both thinking of FDR, one can't escape him in reading WWII books, he is the center of it all. Why is it? Well, all our presidents are at the center, but this man - 4 terms for one thing, death in office another, an invalid, but it is more than that.
What is it?
JOAN, WWII was certainly related to power - Hitler wanted power so that he could grab land for Germany, and he didn't want to stop once he started did he? Was his goal to become Emperor of the world, where would he have stopped if not in England/USA?
FDR/America, was forced into war by Japan, of course, but before that the necessisty to stop Hitler in England before he set his sights on America was certainly an incentive to aid in any way the forces that were fighting the Axis power.
-
I'm trying to remember, JOAN, if that was the statue we saw on the bus trip when we all were in Washington? I think we saw the one with the cape, not this one.
In one of the books I have read about FDR - he gave all his inherited wealth to buy Warm Springs, GA and remodel it with cottages, etc. for children of polio. Eleanor was supporting herself after his death with her writings - I believe the Hyde Park home was left to the National Trust, but am not sure when that happened. Eleanor owned the cottage she had built on the grounds, but I have read that she had financial problems later in life.
-
I'm looking over Chapter 15 - Chicago, the second city (is it still?) and New York's difference of opinion about the anti-Nazi film, Pastor Hall. German Americans in Chicago were able to ban the film there and seven other similar films.
ONe has to smile at some of the antics, the quotes. McCormick, owner of the Chicago Tribune (wasn't it recently sold?) stated that when easterners looked beyond Ohio they think they are Buffalo Bill.
But it wasn't too long ago in my life - around 1960-70 - that some friends decided to pick up and go west where the "future" was - California. And that was true - Silicon Valley was just beginning.
HAROLD - you see, all of us have related our memories, our stories. We can relate to each other better that way, get to know each other.
JONATHAN, happy to see you return to us. What of these years in your life? Were you in England, Canada, the USA?
At that time to Middle Easterners, New York City was a "Sodom and Gomorrah of sin" - is it still viewed that way by the middle east states of America? It was in my youth in Ohio.
-
Off to read the Chapter 15 and the next section, but first, before I forget...Ella, yes, you did see FDR in his wheelchair covered by a cape. This was the original part of the memorial...and it is still there. By the time President Clinton formally dedicated the site in 1997, the second statue showing the wheelchair was added to the entrance to the site. You'll have to remind me when we were there. Was it 2000? If so, you would have seen both.
(http://s3-media1.ak.yelpcdn.com/bphoto/RRERBS-fsnNH8ZvHf19N5g/l.jpg)
As I'm reading these pages, I don't think of Roosevelt leading the country - from his wheelchair. And that was just how he wanted it.
-
PatH have a good trip and hope the sun shines where you are going.
Yes, I was thinking of the group in Chicago when I remarked how folks like to take the limelight when it shines to advocate for their agenda. Once they moved the office to Chicago all sorts of agendas vied for attention.
JoanP I do think Roosevelt wanted to keep his power - when push came to shove he manipulated to obtain the nomination that lead to his third term. I do not think he saw himself as representing the most powerful nation in the world - I only think we all became conscious of that after WWII. I think power is as hard to walk away from as any addiction - in their minds no one can do it better than they can.
Oh yes, another book I downloaded for all of ninety nine cents is a book about the miss-translations of Mein Kamph - the only accurate translation evidently is the Ford translation - all the early translations, parts were omitted and words selected that made the book more offensive and disjointed than it was written - the author of this ebook explains the book and does agree there are times he sounds like he is going off the deep end however, he points out he had to write it that way as representing - oh I forgot the word he used - but essentially a very rabid group trying to do what it took to bring pride back to Germany after the Vienna Peace agreement through their platform - the word platform was not used but that is the best I can remember how it was phrased.
We have made this man the epitome of all that is evil, and yes, he became so, however i feel we are obscuring from ourselves who this man was and when he stepped deep into evil personified. I want to look at his motives before he obtained the power to be a demagogue - make him into flesh and blood that then he becomes a help in identifying aspects of leadership that point to the handwriting on the wall - I cannot believe he was an anomaly and to discover when a passion for good intentions becomes irrational. And so another on my list - with all the books about Hitler Hitler: Beyond Evil and Tyranny by Stolfi seems like it may give me more of what I want to discover.
-
Bewildering isn't it? Trying to make sense of human affairs. History is a maelstrom. And some get caught up in it, in curious ways. Hitler was trying to build a nation, and wouldn't/couldn't let anyone stand in his way. Naturally his career is a fascinating thing to study. He was a hero to some. But from the beginning there were those who wanted him out of the way, and many attempts on his life were either planned or carried out, unsuccessfully. The last picture of him shows a haggard, old man viewing the ruins of his Chancellory. He had such grand plans. To build monuments more impressive than the pyramids.
And yet, once his life was saved by a Jew. Hitler was at the peak of his power. He was parading himelf on the street, on horseback. He lost control of the horse which galloped careening down the avenue, with Hilter in extreme danger. A passing Jew threw himself in harm's way and brought the horse under control. A grateful Hitler asked, do you know who I am, I am the Fuehrer. Ask me for any favor, and it shall be yours. His bewildered rescuer finally muttered: don't tell anyone.
-
JOAN: we were there in 2006.
ELLA " I see my walker beckoning and find it somewhat humiliating, slowing me down".
If that depresses you, here is an antidote. Watch this:
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?v=10102527792694996
-
JOAN: we were there in 2006
And I remember that statue. It was nice to see the dog Falla again.
Roosevelt was right to hide his disability. It's hard to remember how very different the attitude toward disabilities was back then. They weren't accepted; people looked away, didn't talk abut them. To be unable to walk would have been a tremendous disadvantage to a politician. He would have been perceived as weak, maybe not quite a man.
-
Hitler's suicide must have been easy for Hitler that night in the bunker. He must have been in a terrible depressed state of mind as the Russians stormed into Berlin. The mutual suicide of Eva Braun is harder to understand. Their relationship from the begining never seemed very intense. Had she lived I doubt that she would heen subject to any serious war crimes charge.
Of the numerous Nurenburg defendents, Alfred Speer's 20 year sentenence seemed to many as letting him off eazy. In the 1970's, I read all Alfred Speer's books and other book on the trial. The Russian and French judges wanted to hang him. The Russians made sure that Speer served every day of his sentence, but Speer's survival gave him the chance after his 1967 release to write several books detail ing the day to day history of the third Reich. The history of WWII is completer because of these books.
Regarding FDR's disability, in the 1940's he fooled me. It was post war when I realize how disabiling they were. I am thinking of buying a walker. True, one Alieve a daywill usually get me throug the day without any real pain. But I think I would walk more, if I had one, maybe even without the Alieve, Also I would certainly welcome the chance to sit down when ever I wanted to at a museum or elsewhere.
-
JOANK, I needed that, what a guy that Richie is, what a cute baby, and what wonderful parents he had. I feel humbled! I
Harold, I have a walker sitting in a corner, I use it occasionally.
What kind of treaties do we have for other nations that might be attacked by an enemy? I know we have one with Israel; what others do we have?
Britain had a treaty with Poland, I believe, and that is why she declared war when it was invaded. Didn't Hitler have any idea of the possibility of defeat? All of Europe? And then Britain, and then the USA?
-
Ella true England had a treaty with England obligating them to go to Poland's aid if Invaded, but so did Checksolovica the year earlier. In 1939 even Chamberland felt they had to honor their commitment.
-
Interesting - another new book about the secrets of Britain prior to WWII - no release date yet, although publication in September - Wealth of an Empire: The Treasure Shipments that Saved Britain and the World Looks like if not Chamberlain someone was making preparations.
The description...
Wealth of an Empire tells the dramatic true story of a top-secret mission that changed the course of World War II: Great Britain’s shipment of virtually its entire treasury across the treacherous waters of the North Atlantic to safety in the United States and Canada. Had the Germans captured or sunk the treasure-laden ships, the war could have been lost more than eighteen months before the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor.
The British government authorized this immensely risky and long-running operation not only because of the obvious danger that Germany’s rising militancy posed but also because of the isolationist sentiment that permeated both American society and Congress. America’s refusal to sell arms and other goods without payment up front left Britain little choice but to mount this daring operation.
Only a few banking, political, and military leaders were responsible for the complicated logistical and security procedures that were designed to safeguard the transfer of both gold and financial securities to North America. Although the special shipments were initially of relatively modest value, the strategic imperative changed dramatically when Germany threatened to invade Britain in the summer of 1940. Fearing that Britain’s wealth might fall into German hands, in an audacious yet visionary decision newly installed prime minister Winston Churchill authorized the evacuation of nearly all of Britain’s liquid assets.
Wealth of an Empire uses previously unused and unavailable original documents—including those from the British National Archives, the Bank of England’s archives, the Imperial War Museum, and the Bank of Canada’s archives—to shed new light on this underexplored aspect of Britain’s wartime history.
-
Bellamarie:
Journalism 101 taught the basic....Who, What, When, Where, How and Why. Not sure that is being taught any more by the way many of these reporters are reporting.
They certainly don't practice it. I bet you were also taught that at least a bit of each basic had to be in the first paragraph, and they NEVER do that now. You have to work through three paragraphs of a human interest example before you know where the article is going.
Of course it's often the examples that drive the point home and make you remember it, but I still don't like it.
-
Thanks, BARBARA, I remember reading in our book, I think, that FDR wanted to send aid to England but Congress insisted on the payment of such aid upfront; until he got Congress to approve the lend lease act. I don't think Olson related the facts of any shipment carrying England's treasury here for safekeeping. With Hitler surrounding her island and bombing every night, it would be sensible to ship it over in the probability of losing them in an invasion.
Let us know what you learn from the various sources you are reading about Hitler. I have never read a book about the man, know that he was from Austria, was a paper hanger, wanted to be an artist, loved his niece and brought her to Germany with him and he slowly started to form the black shirts was it?
-
Let us know what you learn from the various sources you are reading about Hitler. I have never read a book about the man, know that he was from Austria, was a paper hanger, wanted to be an artist, loved his niece and brought her to Germany with him and he slowly started to form the black shirts was it?
Hitler did produce a number of paintings. I've seen some. In 1937 the nazis started a campaign against "degenerate art", and when they removed the paintings from museums, they mounted an exhibit of entartete kunst--degenerate art, along with one of approved art.
About 25 years ago someone recreated the exhibit, and I saw it when it came to DC. They also had some of the approved stuff, including some of Hitler's. I'm not an art expert, but they looked wishy-washy and conventional to me, but fitting Hitler's notion of morally uplifting.
-
http://fcit.usf.edu/holocaust/arts/artdegen.htm (http://fcit.usf.edu/holocaust/arts/artdegen.htm)
Here's an interesting article about it, including who the artists were, and how many of them escaped.
-
Thanks, PATH, for that. I couldn't get to any of his art from there but hre are six of his paintings: Although I don't why we should be interested in this fanatic. How the German people could listen to his outbursts - his yelling - which were called speeches - is astounding to me.
http://search.yahoo.com/search;_ylt=AjIGgiVYSVByPGRPoPOxzLibvZx4?fr=yfp-t-302-1-s&toggle=1&cop=mss&ei=UTF-8&p=hitler's%20artwork
I read an article about the silence of the German people after the war when they were asked (or knew) about the holocaust and the author of the article compared that to the American people's silence when they heard about the thousands of people killed and injured in just two atomic bombs dropped on Japan.
JONATHAN, is that a true story about a Jew saving Hitler's life? That's a good one, paraticularly the last line.
-
When to be frank with the public? Lord Lothian returned to the USA in late November, 1940 and told reporters at the airport - "Boys, Britain's broke. It's your money we want."
How often does an ambassador speak that frankly to the public? When criticized he said they might as well know it, but it sparked an "intense national debate." Rightly so.
Let the public decide.
If the American public had been told about the atomic bomb, what do you think might have been the consequence? Would we have dropped the atomic bombs on Japan?
-
Yes, first of all we had no idea the damage - remember how various tests for years later were carried out with soldiers placed 5 and 7 miles away, behind earth hills constructed like digging a foxhole and during the bombing they wore only goggles for protection and dignitaries in hastily constructed cement block bunkers again wearing only goggles - there was a documentary recently on the dropping of the first nuclear bomb on an Atoll and 16 scientists and soldiers with great difficulty had to be extracted from the island covered by cotton sheets.??!!??
And second the fear of fighting street to street in Japan loosing so many more of our young men was not palatable - anything to stop the deaths - the Kamikaze pilots proved to us the Japanese would fight to the death.
-
I can't think anything more horrible in history of the human race - than the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagaski. It takes your breath away, contemplating the misery of those human beings...and the repercussions that went on for so many years afterwards.
Do you have any memories of that event? How did you react? I was 7 at the time.. with my grandmother. My grandfather had recently died. Gram lived with her young unmarried daughter. Her other daughter, my mother, was not with us - she died that July, leaving the five of us. My grandmother's youngest son, my uncle George was on his way to Japan. I remember his posing for pictures in his uniform.
I don't remember much about the bombs...but I do remember my grandmother in tears..., tears of joy - so HAPPY that the war was going to be over and my uncle was coming home.
Is that how most people reacted? I've read and heard so much about how the bombs saved so many lives that would have been lost - because the Japanese were prepared to fight to the end.
An interesting queston Ella - If the American public had been told about the atomic bomb, what do you think might have been the consequence?
I think I'll have to agree with Barb. Since no one really knew the magnitude of the destruction of these bombs...I'd say the public would have been all for bringing the war to an end, bringing the boys home - no matter what the cost. Am I wrong? Ella, do we show the people the Hiroshima, 1945 documentary photographs (http://www.fogonazos.es/2007/02/hiroshima-pictures-they-didnt-want-us_05.html) before they answer the questions?
On another note, here's a link to Hiroshima today...
(http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_Mpd1ozuoa64/TFsUssBHA3I/AAAAAAAACeo/JdqxVmAdn9Q/s1600/Hiroshima+2010.jpg)
-
The Book Club Online is the oldest book club on the Internet, begun in 1996, open to everyone. We offer cordial discussions of one book a month, 24/7 and enjoy the company of readers from all over the world. Everyone is welcome.
August Book Club Online
THOSE ANGRY DAYS by Lynne Olson
Roosevelt, Lindbergh, and America’s Fight Over World War II, 1939-1941
| (http://www.seniorlearn.org/bookclubs/angrydays/angrydayscover.jpg) |
".............the definitive account of the debate over American intervention in World War II—a bitter, sometimes violent clash of personalities and ideas that divided the nation and ultimately determined the fate of the free world. - The New York Times
“In Those Angry Days, journalist-turned-historian Lynne Olson captures [the] period in a fast-moving, highly readable narrative punctuated by high drama. It’s . . . popular history at its most riveting, detailing what the author rightfully characterizes as ‘a brutal, no-holds-barred battle for the soul of the nation.’ It is sure to captivate readers seeking a deeper understanding of how public opinion gradually shifted as America moved from bystander to combatant in the war to preserve democracy.”—Associated Press |
| DISCUSSION SCHEDULE: |
| August 1-7 | Chapters 1-7 |
| August 8-14 | Chapters 8-14 |
| August 15-21 | Chapters 15-21 |
| August 22-28 | Chapters 22-28 |
Discussion Leaders: Ella (egibbons28@columbus.rr.com) & Harold (hhullar5@yahoo.com)
-
I am fascinated and would love to really understand the difference in feeling guilt - example - the Bataan Death march was 55 miles of 72,000 soldiers who had used up all their provisions and living in the jungle - there were between 5000 and 7000 deaths - so let's use the 7000 -
There were 50,000 men, WOMAN and CHILDREN marched 2,200 miles from the Carolina's, Georgia etc that the US government wants to only own the death of 4,000 where as the Cherokee alone, not counting the Chickasaw or the Choctaw count between 5,000 and 25,000 - So only using the 5,000 number that is 10% just over the percent who died on the Bataan Death march and yet, even I have to own my tummy still lurches hearing about the Bataan Death March. Do we like Pontius Pilate wash our hands - I hear folks say our family was not yet here in the US in 1831 and yet, how many of us had family in the Philippians during WWII or had family who survived the death march.
How does our inner unconscious decide when we will be shocked, astounded and horrified. We can quote the number of deaths from Hitler's death camps - about 12 million - the number rolls off our tongue and yet, do we count that when Columbus stepped foot in the Americas in North America alone there were between 50 and 100 million native Americans and by 1900 they were decimated to 1 million with countless children taken from their families who had already experienced the loss of their home - sure there was fighting and death to us immigrants however, the white population exponentially increased in number during the same 408 years. And yes, a large percentage was death from disease brought by the white race - however if the whites were dying in similar numbers there would be all sorts of efforts to find cures never mind the huge number of Indians purposefully given disease ridden goods.
Why? - Another - we built Japan back after WWII - it took the native Indian population to figure out how to get around state laws to finally have an economy built on the whites penchant for gambling. Those reservations without income from gambling are still in the thralls of poverty. In most cases we never even and still haven't honored our treaties but we sure took the resources and inhabited their lands.
More than anything I just do not understand how we react in outrage reading history without owning our own horrendous national behavior. This has always confused me. Do we so compartmentalize events that like riding a roller coaster we can zip along from one dip to the next - Does land not unite us but rather race and nationality bind us? I am not talking about justice, I am only trying to figure out our emotional reactions to savagery that excludes our own savage behavior. Sorta the 'There but for the grace of God, go I'. Has this weighed on anyone else's mind?
-
In a post yesterday Ella asked: Let us know what you learn from the various sources you are reading about Hitler. I have never read a book about the man, know that he was from Austria, was a paper hanger, wanted to be an artist, loved his niece and brought her to Germany with him and he slowly started to form the black shirts was it?
For one of the best and perhaps a most reliable primary sources about Hitler’s mind set in the 1930’s and 40’ read the several writings of Albert Speer. This is because of the special relation that Speer enjoyed with the Fuhrer throughout the 1930’s and 40’s. This relationship came about because of Hitler’s early concept of himself as an artist and architect. Speer had been introduced to Hitler I guess in the early 1930 and doubtlessly discussed architecture on a flattering peer to peer basis. I think Speer had a role in the architectural planning of the 1936 Berlin Olympic Games. Also he designed the art off several large pre war Nazi party rallies. He had war time meetings with Hitler concerning post war rebuilding of Germany. I particularly remember Speer’s description of his later meetings with Hitler who blamed others never realizing the inevitability of pending defeat until at last he bit the Cyanide pill leaving Speer the dubious distinction of his heir as the 2nd and last Fuhrer.
-
Harold if there is another book on Hilter's life by Speer it does not seem to be available - the book by Speer that Amazon has in its inventory is Inside the Third Reich by Albert Speer - there are a few books that are given 4 and half stars about Speer that he shared a fanciful account of himself and what happened - I wonder if that is why a book he may have written about Hitler is no longer available. becasue usually if a book is out of print Amazon will still list it. Often there are resale copies that individuals try to sell. Can you remember a Title - that may help locating the book that sounds like a first hand account.
-
Today we have begun our 3rd weeks assignment that includes Chapter Chapter 16, “The Bubonic Plague Among Writers.” Chapter 17, “A National Disgrace, ”Chapter 18,”Well Boys Brittan’ Brittan’s Broke”, Chapter 19, “A Race against Time”Chapter 20 , “A Traitorous Point of View” and Chapter 21, Der Fuhrer Thanks You For Your Loyalty.
At the end of this Week next Wednesday we will find ourselves almost at war with Germany with the U.S. Navy Conveying ships in the Atlantic as far as Iceland where the Royal Navy took them the rest of the distance to English ports. On Next Thursday the final week‘s discussion of the subject with the discussion of the surprise Declarations of War against first Japan and 3 days later Germany.
-
There are probably 60 book on my book shelves relating to Nazi Germany and WW II. Here are three titles I particularly remember, Albert Speer, "Spandau",1976., Albert Speer, "Inside the 3rd Reich," 1970, and James P. O'Donnell, "The Bunker," 1978. This is a particularity intriguing account of the bunker physiology of the Top Nazi's trapped in the bunker during the final days as the Battle for Berlin waged above.
-
HAROLD, were you in WWII? My husband was in the Navy in the Pacific although I never knew him until 1948 and he would never talk of the war, never read a book about it. All veterans are different in that respect, I understand.
JOANP, as I remember - I was in high school at the time - it was a joyous time for America. Isn't that awful in retrospect? But everyone knew the war would soon be over, the boys were coming home. I get teary-eyed when I write "the boys coming home." It's a patriotic feeling, I get tears when people stand when the flag goes by or they sing the Star Spangled Banner, it's an innate feeling hard to describe.
It was sometime later we learned of the consequences, but I remember everyone justifying it by what Barbara said - it saved untold lives on both sides.
INcidentally, Barbara, I understand. We do compartmentalize, but we do read hopefully of all the wrongs committed in our history.
Don't you think we are less savage as a nation than what our early history was? Are we better or getting there? Has our emphasis on human rights done anything for us as citizens, as a nation?
-
replying to your thought 'was the atomic bomb the right way to go'.....I was thinking about 2 books I've read to do with Japan and their treatment of American prisoners of war; sadly I can only name one of these books as the online group where I kept my lists of books I've read dissolved, and somehow I am missing one years worth of the reading I did that year...but one book Unbroken by Laura Hillenbrand about Olympian star Lou Zamperini on a rescue mission from Hawaii forced to ditch his plane over the Pacific and his survival, finally to be caught by the Japanese and the malicious, abusive torture this young man received daily at their hands for no apparent reason....the other book about a group of Americans going into an Asian area to rescue a group of prisoners of war...and there was description of the horrors the prisoners of war were under,... being dehumanized.....unthinkable, no ethic code for those abusers even if they were mind shifted into the practice of abusing their prisoners and had not been that way prior to the war.....the atomic bomb at least stopped that abuse from continuing on, who knows how long further....no Geneva convention code held in place for those captives sadly
I sadly realize the horror story to the victims of the atomic bombing....many of the Japanese that were responsible for the horrors in the prison camps and those that forced Japanese soldiers to reset their minds to be able to do atrocities to the prisoners so many Japanese were themselves victims in a way,.... responding in a way their overlords wanted them to; by dehumanizing their prisoners and causing their demise in situations of horror...
...but mostly those victims in the bombed areas, the extreme pain, disfigurement, deaths, radiation sickness, cancers later.....
I think knowing this I know how I would vote with my yes or no vote to the 'bomb'! And I'm not even American so I wouldn't get a vote.
-
War is Hell. Who said that? Wasn't it General Sherman after his destructive march through Georgia and South Carolina? It is well that we remind ourselves of the brutalities and atrocities committed in wartime. The carnage and destruction. Is it any wonder that there was so much opposition to getting involved in another European war?
I can't get over it. Churchill providing safe transportation for the wealth of an Empire, while instructing his ambassador to tell the Yanks, 'We're Broke'!
Harold, I remember reading The Bunker under unusual circumstances, shortly after it came out. Greyhound offered Canadians unlimited bus travel for a very small fee, in recognition for services rendered in Iran by our ambassador to American soldiers caught in a trap. So I took my twelve-year-old son for a ride down to NYC. Then Washington, and finally down to Charleston and Fort Sumter. We had a wonderful time. Along the way I meditated on Hitler,s unusual fate. He had such grand dreams, but will forever be remembered for the ulitmate horrors committed in his short time on history's stage.
For a while the world was astonished at what he was achieving in Germany. The country was demoralized, in terrible shape. Churchill wanted to meet him, when he was in Germany in the early thirties, but Hilter's busy schedule didn't make it possible. But for that, and history could have taken a different course. Those two could have made a sweet deal, both being painters and all. Both detested that communist menace in the east.
-
Interesting thoughts on reporting the news. My gripe is that they all want to do more than report. They want to influence the reader's thinking. As a consequence we get more opinion than news. Journalists want to be influential and feel they're having an effect on public opinion polls. Perhaps even reaching the leaders. Be their mouthpiece. Of course, the period under discussion produced some very outstanding commentators Don't you all remember Dorothy Thompson? Wasn't she a sweetheart?
-
CSpan's BookTV tomorrow (Saturday, 8/17) at 2 PM ET, will have Susan Dunn discussing her book 1940; FDR, WILKIE, LINDBERGH, HITLER - THE ELECTION AMID THE STORM. (43 minutes). I plan to read this book when I finish Angry Days.
It will be available at BookTV.org for watching later if you can't watch it Saturday.
Marj
-
Ella, as I have said before, I was on active duty in the U.S. Navy for some 20 months from Nov, 1944 through June 1945.. I arrived at a Navy Base in the Philippine Island in August 1945 just a few days after the 2 Atom bombs had brought the surrender offer. After that I spent the next at 3 months at Ulithi atoll decommissioning the major Navy base there . That was followed by 7 months as as a Base Electrician at the Commander of the Marianas Headquarters on Guam. I was Discharged at Camp Wallace Texas near Houston on June 19,1945.
Jonathan, I bet you and your son found that buss trip to the U.S.Interesting. I remember that U.S. confrontation with Iran and the role the Canadian Embassy played in engineering the release of the prisoners. Your trip with your son to New York City, Washington, and on to South Carolina must have displayed quite a U.S.cultural contrast.
Also I do not recall hearing any news of the vast transfer of U.K. wealth to the U.S. for safe keeping. I don't think it got much news publicity at the time. I first heard of it when I read the book
Thank you Marjify for your report of the CSpan broadcast tomorrow discussing Susan Dunn'sr book," 1940; FDR, WILKIE, LINDBERGH, HITLER." I'll plan on watching it.
-
More on the subject of guilt and regret...and the atomic bomb. When thinking about Ella's question and recent comments, about how the American people would have reacted if they knew what this bomb could do...I started to think of Paul Tibbetts, the pilot who dropped that bomb. How he felt before - and after he learned of the destruction and devastations.
From some sites on Paul Tibbets and the Enola Gay -
Paul Warfield Tibbets, Sr. and Enola Gay "...had served as the personal pilot of Dwight D. Eisenhower, and he was already an experienced B-29 pilot, thus making him an ideal candidate.
Tibbets had to frequently fly to the Los Alamos Laboratories (in New Mexico) for briefings regarding the Manhattan Project
Initially, Tibbets was unfamiliar with even the concept of an atomic bomb, and was quoted in a 1946 article in The New Yorker saying, "I will go only so far as to say that I knew what an atom was
When the A-bomb was dropped on the city, Tibbets recalls that the city was covered with a tall mushroom cloud.
Colonel Tibbets was seen as a national hero who ended the war with Japan. There were, however, no parades or testimonial dinners for him or any of the other Enola Gay crewmen.
In a 1975 interview he said: "I'm proud that I was able to start with nothing, plan it, and have it work as perfectly as it did .... I sleep clearly every night."[9]
In the 2005 BBC premier, Hiroshima: BBC History of World War II, Tibbets recalled the day of the Hiroshima bombing. When the bomb had hit its target, he was relieved. Tibbets stressed in the interview, "I'm not emotional. I did the job and I was so relieved that it was successful, you can't even understand it."
In 1995, he denounced the 50th anniversary exhibition of the Enola Gay at the Smithsonian Institution, which attempted to present the bombing in context with the destruction it caused, as a "damn big insult, due to its focus on the Japanese casualties rather than the brutality of the Japanese government and the subsequent necessity of the bombing.
"His crews respected him. Psychologically, he could handle the aftereffects of such a mission. For the last 60 years, he has had to deal with the controversy."
"I knew when I got the assignment it was going to be an emotional thing," Tibbets acknowledged Wednesday, noting of his crew, "We had feelings, but we had to put them in the background. We knew it was going to kill people right and left. But my one driving interest was to do the best job I could so that we could end the killing as quickly as possible"If Dante had been on the plane with us, he would have been terrified," Tibbets later said.
"My God," co-pilot Capt. Robert Lewis scribbled in his flight log.
Death estimates have varied widely. Some say 80,000 is a reliable figure, while noting that tens of thousands of others perished by year’s end from the effects of radiation. The dead included 20,000 Koreans the Japanese had enslaved for war work.
-
I'm a bit confused about why we are talking about the end of the war with Germany and the atomic bomb right now - when at this point, the country is still divided about whether we should even enter the war. The Interventionists seem to be gaining momentum, but those opposed are making themselves heard.
I'm interested in the founders of the America First movement. Chapter 15 cleared that up... I was surprised, (but not really) that the movement grew on college campuses, - first, Yale, Harvard, Dartmouth, and spreading to college campuses across the country. No war for these sons of the priviliged.
I was surprised to read here too that OXFORD students in Britain protested as well, "pledging not to bear arms for flag and country."
Parents found this hard to comprehend. Fathers who had fought for the country in WWI seen the horror of war, yet were interventionists now, ready for another war.
Student movements protested loudly, as the AMERICA FIRST movement grew. Charles Lindbergh was their hero. When invited to Yale - (or was it Harvard,) his speech was met with "thundering applause" - much to his surprise. He had been thinking of turning down the invitation, afraid of protests.
If war comes, who would fight?
Fast forward...to 1968, the Harvard campus. Bruce and I were living in Cambridge at the time and saw the protest demonstrations agaist the war in Vietnam - almost daily. It was scarey. So much anger. How did their parents, the WWII vets take their unwillingness to go to war? What was different this time, the professors at the universities were sympathetic to their position. Weren't they also WWII Vets? Where were you on Vietnam?
-
THANK YOU ALL FOR YOUR REMARKS, it's so interesting to come in and read them all and isn't history a wonderful subject to discuss? We should do more of it - what book, what historical period would you suggest?
But back to our present book and the angry days. Do you sense anger among these people? Who? What pages or chapters? The "fierce conflicting pressures of isolationists and interventionists?"
In Chapter 19 (pg.189) we are told that "with a reviving economy, private industry was hardly eager to deny consumers the new cars and other items they were demanding or to give up the profits that resulted."[/i
Now there is a dilemma, I would think! How was it done? By government force, incentive, how?
FDR was ill, there was unease in Washington. Can you imagine what G.Britain was feeling, they were losing the war - "hanging on by their eyelids" as one pundit called it.
HOW WAS IT DONE?
-
Can you imagine what G.Britain was feeling, they were losing the war - "hanging on by their eyelids" as one pundit called it.
Ella, that's why I was so shocked to read that British students were protesting as well! Was it just Oxford?
OXFORD students in Britain protested as well, "pledging not to bear arms for flag and country."
-
That is shocking, JOANP, first I've ever read of it. HEre in America we would have called them draft dodgers if they refused to serve in the military.
I have an idea Englad had a policty for dealing with those who refused to serve. I bet Churchill would had plenty to say about such pledges by students.
-
When I read that I thought like father like son since we learned that most in Parliament grew up as boyhood friends in "Public" schools and attended either Oxford or Cambridge and here their sons are protesting echoing Parliament - I guess these sons and daughters in Oxford had parents supporting their efforts. I wonder if it was even brought up at the dinner table or was it so engrained an attitude there was no need for conversation at home.
Classes all day today - just a quick break for lunch - may not get back in here till tomorrow
-
JOANP: Just a quick note, what page was that quote from - about the Oxford students? I want to look up the source for it and perhaps we can read more bout that.
-
The quote was on p. 221, Chapter 15, Ella... I checked Lynne Olson's notes in the back of the book and see it was from Eric Sevareid's book, Not so Wild A Dream. p.60 Another name from the past, no? Was it that long ago?
Bruce and I were talking about this over lunch...he asked when the Oxford students were protesting the war - before France was invaded? I think it would be important to know that...
Here's a link to Eric Sevareid's book -http://www.amazon.com/Not-Wild-Dream-Eric-Sevareid/dp/0826210147
ps Just checked my library - it's there, it's available. I'll pick it up this afternoon before I go to the market.
-
Here's a book that has a lot to say about those who refused to go to war. Someone here recommended it not long ago, if I remember correctly. I have a copy and it does look interesting.
http://www.amazon.com/End-All-Wars-Rebellion-1914-1918/dp/0547750315/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&qid=1376685223&sr=8-4&keywords=to+end+all+war
Thanks to everyone for the references to other books related to what we are reading. There's so much out there. But Those Angry Days should be read by every thoughtful citizen.
Is there a good bio of Harry Hopkins? Thanks for the fine pic, Ella. He does look good in it.
-
Was the story true, of the horse that wanted Hilter off it's back? I believe it was meant as a parable. It's a Jewish story, of course, that's on the lookout for the ironies in their history.
-
Jonathan, I remember Harry Hopkins as a Principal Roosevelt advisers and even thought he had been around serving later Presidents, but I was wrong about that. There is a short Hopkins web biography at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_Hopkins . I was surprised to find he died in 1946. He had served Roosevelt in setting up the New Deal in the 1930's and through the early War crisis years. He had stomach cancer in 1936 necessitating surgery that saved his life after which Roosevelt used him as a live in White House adviser particularly as his principal contact contact with Winston Churchill. Later in 1945 Hopkins accompanied Roosevelt to the Yalta Conference. He died in 1946.
I also find it hard to believe Hitler did any horseback riding after WW I, certainly not after he became came to power in 1933.
-
I have not actively participated in this discussion, but have read all the posts with great interest.
Regarding books about Harry Hopkins, I have two, "Harry Hopkins: Ally of the Poor and Defender of Democracy" by George McJimsey and "Harry Hopkins: A Biography" by June Hopkins, his granddaughter. I attended an Elderhostel class in Savannah, Ga. taught by June Hopkins sometime late 1990's. At the time she was a professor at Atlantic State University in Savannah. Both books detail the enormous part Harry Hopkins played during the depression and the Roosevelt era.
-
dean69, it is good to know that you have been with us - and to hear your comments from time to time. I love the way connections are being made...and that you actually met up with Henry Hopkins granddaughter to learn of the part he played in FDR's administration. Another of that era who died in 1946! I can't begin to think of the lonely, difficult time Harry Truman will have...
Jonathan- I followed the link you provided to To End All Wars: A Story of Loyalty and Rebellion, 1914-1918 Thank you!
"—there was a stronger antiwar movement there than anywhere else. More than 20,000 British men of military age refused the draft, and, as a matter of principle, many also refused the non-combatant alternative service offered to conscientious objectors, such as working in war industries or driving ambulances. More than 6,000 of these young men went to prison under very harsh conditions, as did some brave, outspoken critics of the war."
Not long after, in the 30's, we're finding resistance to the new war that threatens Britain. In Lynne Olson's book, she referred to the pledge the Oxford students made in Britain...not to take up arms for king and country. Her end note directed us to Eric Sevareid's autobiography - Not So Wild a Dream, p.60. She didn't say WHEN the Oxford Movement took place. I thought that was important to know...
I picked up Mr. Sevareid's book from the library to read the source and learn more...and spent much of last pm reading his first person account , lost in the many tangents following this committed isolationist from very early days up to WWII and beyond.
-
Hopefully I will be able to briefly share what I learned of Sevareid and student revolts on college campuses in the US and in Britain...
"He writes "on campust after campus, students demonstrated to keep out of any future wars to preserve at least an oasis of sanity in an insane world."
"Thousands of young Americans, including Sevareid, following the lead of the students at Britain's Oxford University in pledging not to bear arms for flag or country." This is what Lynne Olson wrote in Angry Days. She didn't mention when.
Eric S. writes of the state of intellectual ferment he found on the campus of the U. of Minnesota when he enrolled there.. The students hated the military establishment - students were "forced against their will" to take military training 3x a week for two years. ROTC. He writes of the 200-300 students who assembled to to debate the Oxford Movement, pledging never to take up arms for flag and country. Sevareid had enrolled as a student at the age of 20, he was born in 1912 - so this took place in 1932 when their was no immediate threat of war.
He writes that the students' hope was that truth would defeat Hitler, that he would be stopped, would be killed by the democracies of Europe.
He worked as a journalist for three years in London, returned to America in 1940 after witnessing human suffering - After working in America two years, he wrote, "I could no longer postpone a personal, moral crisis, the matter of becoming a soldier." Many of his friends had enlisted, (including the Jacobins (his friends from U. of Minn who had taken the pledge.)
I've read that most of those student protesters from America's college campuses enlisted "in droves" after Pearl Harbor. I imagine that those in Britain did the same when their shores were threatened.
Ella...as far as I can tell, there was no way to coerce manufacturers of cars and appliances, etc. to convert to planes and munitions - until Pearl Harbor - when they immediately went into production 24-! Pearl Harbor had an amazing effect on our way of life!
-
I remember the shock of Pearl Harbor - 9/11 seemed to freeze us for days as we watched and heard of heroics, last calls from loved ones and the digging after - where as Pearl Harbor was the opposite - maybe because there were so many irons in the fire that could move into action but it felt like overnight we were all doing something - in those early days I remember as a Girl Scout we were tearing up sheets etc and winding bandages - sounds like something out of the Civil War but that was how WWII started with women immediately going into action on the home-front using the same skill sets from WWI, they hustled the family into action knitting sox, saving newspaper, and getting the preserves counted and planning the garden for next spring to feed the family.
Been reading Roosevelt's Second Act by Richard Moe that includes lots of additional detail from 1936 forward - it appears he had been fully engaged in planning his retirement that included designing a cottage on the Hyde Park estate to work on his papers. The author shares there is very little first hand information about the mindset of FDR therefore, most conclusions about his actions were suppositions from his actions.
He goes on to 'suppose' that FDR did not see another candidate who could take on Hitler and was already deeply involved with Churchill therefore with lots of trepidations (taken from the memoirs of close associates) it was a gradual decision to seek the third term.
During the 1939 Gridiron Club dinner members wheeled out an eight-foot-tall paper-mâché sphinx featuring Roosevelt's Iconic grin with cigarette holder. The question they asked "Will you run? / Or are you done?" FDR laughed - the sphinx remains on view at his presidential library in Hyde Park.
He saw Wendell Wilkie as hapless and the remarks by a Republican was, "Franklin Roosevelt is not running against Wendell Wilkie, he's running against Adolf Hitler."
Hitler invaded Poland in 1939 and the Democratic National Convention was in Chicago July 1940. Reporters and political cartoonist continued to depict him as the 'sphinx'.
-
As far as I can see, Lynne Olson's whole book demonstrates that Charles Lindbergh was right in his assessment of who was dragging America into the war. With his country under attack he too 'reenlisted' and got into action in the Pacific.
I can't believe what I'm reading. I can't remember when I've been so overwhelmed by a book. What strong memories those angry days have left in the memory of others. I now see why after sixty years Philip Roth in his book The Plot Against America could still portray Charles Lindbergh as Nazi-oriented. What a climate of fear and hate. I'm surprised to what an extent FDR himself was caught up in it.
I'm sure you're all aware of Robert Sherwood's book, Roosevelt and Hopkins. Those two were certainly close. In another book I read that Sherwood fought with the Canadians at Vimy Ridge in WWI, before the U.S. got into the fight.
Back to our book. Interesting to read that many in the higher ranks in the U.S. military were of the same mind as Charles Lindbergh. Stay out of it.
-
Another tidbit I did not know - seems the oval office had not always been oval - Theodore had made changes but in 1933 FDR made the changes we see today - more accessible for his wheelchair he loved playing architect and added the Georgian details - the pediments over the doorways, deep crown molding, bookcases in niches, a large medallion of the presidential seal on the ceiling including the tradition of two high backed chairs in front of the fireplace opposite the room from the desk so that photos could be taken of a seated president with visiting dignitaries.
The reporters used to crowd into the oval office for their press conferences after hearing of the fall of Poland the reporters asked if we could stay out - FDR replied "I not only sincerely hope so, but I believe we can, every effort will be made by the Administration so to do."
During press conferences everything was off the record with a rule what was shared was for background or guidance. The president was not to be quoted unless he gave permission. "Asked if he could be quoted directly on this last statement, he said yes."
-
Regarding my 1941 through 1944 contacts while in High School I can not remember a single example of any organized group in San Antonio publicizing their refusal to serve in the U.S. military. That was what I observed in my limited High School experience. Quite likely there were some. I understand though it was not easy to qualify for the Conscientious Objector status.
I know also in late 1944 and up to the end of the War it became increasing difficult to replace battle causalities on the Normandy Front. Canada provided significant fighting manpower for the British units in France., and Jonathon isn't it true that Canada had no Draft law and that all the Canadian units wer volunteers. In North Africa and Italy many of the British units were from Austria, New Zeeland and even India. I dont know if they used draft conscription as England and the United States. .
-
Quotes from the Fireside Chat the Sunday night September 3, after France and Britain declared war on Germany.
"I have said not once, but many times, that I have seen war and that I hate war. I will say that again and again. I hope that the United States will keep out of this war. I believe that it will. And I give you my assurance and reassurance that every effort of your Government will be directed toward that end."
Later in his chat he says, "Passionately thought we may desire detachment, we are forced to realize that every word that comes through he air, every ship that sails the sea, every battle that is fought, does affect the American future."
"Roosevelt was painting the larger picture for his listeners, reassuring them about the immediate while at the same time urging them to look beyond the immediate and informing them that a dangerous world lay beyond their shores, one that the nation could not ignore. "
-
Read Susan Dunn's 1940: FDR, LINDBERGH, WILLKIE, HITLER - THE ELECTION AND THE STORM.
No one could possibly have more of a problem with retirement than a man who is having a very successful career in public affairs. Nothing illustrates his political acumen better than the way he managed his nomination for a third term.
-
Canada and World Wars.
Yes, Harold. The draft was used to get men to enlist. There was much opposition. Getting into the war took a resolution in Parliament, but that was quickly passed. Conscription being an issue, the resolution included the statement: 'not necessarily conscription, but conscription if necessary.'
There was a vast change from WWI to WWII. In 1914 Canada was informed by the Colonial Secretary in London 'We're at war.' In 1939 we were requested to join. Of course there was no hesitation.
Correct me. if I'm wrong, Deb.
-
Wow we are all bringing additional insight - this is grand - so glad we are doing this and doing such a bang up job of really seeing various authors additions while some offer their additional viewpoints - who knew this was such a jammed packed few months - the war seems like a train on a railroad track as compared to this stew of sentiment.
OK I think this is the best yet of what Lindbergh actually said - not a Nazi sympathizer as I can see from this radio speech.
From the book Roosevelt's Second Act. Four days after the President's fireside chat with encouragement from Lindbergh's conservative friends and with the assistance of the conservative commentator Fulton Lewis Jr. he agreed to a deliver a national radio address the following week.
Anne talking to her mother-in-law remarks how Charles would be fighting the same fight as his father did years ago. Roosevelt learning of Lindbergh's plan did not like it. That is when Truman Smith the military attaché in Berlin, who guided Lindbergh through the German aircraft facilities to "assess the strength and technical proficiency of the Luftwaffe" is now, a colonel working for Gen Arnold is sent to Lindbergh to offer him a new "secretaryship for air" a cabinet position not to deliver the speech.
The speech did not address the repealing of the arms embargo but rather, "urged his countrymen to see the world situation with cold detachment, not allowing "our sentiment, our pity, or our personal feelings of sympathy, to obscure the issue, to affect our children's lives, We must be, as impersonal as a surgeon with his knife." He goes on how we should never enter a war unless there is "absolutely no other recourse," and that was not the current situation. We must either keep out of European wars entirely, or stay in European affairs permanently."
Sounds like some of what we heard about the war in Iraq
Lindbergh goes on to say something about not being threatened by an "Asiatic intruder". He is referring the Genghis Khan and Xerxes- then Lindbergh says, "This is a question of banding together to defend the White race against foreign invasion. This is simply one more of those age old quarrels within our family of nations- a quarrel arising from errors of the last war- from the failure of victors of that war to follow a consistent policy of fairness or of force."
Sounds like our penchant after the Japanese attack, followed by the hysteria that removed Japanese from their homes on the west coast was precluded by Lindbergh reminding us of our fear of Asians in this speech. Never heard or read that was our reaction but now after reading this I wonder what was our underbelly fears.
-
Jonathan I can see why Roth would say what he did - it must be very hard if not impossible to be un-affected by all this dithering about war and blaming anyone who was not ready to storm Europe immediately knowing how many Jews could have been saved - do not know Roth's bio to know if he had family eliminated during the holocaust.
-
Lynne Olson named Chapter 17 that describes the political conflicts that emerged during the 1940 election campaign. "A National Disgrace." Of course members of the America First group wanted to support the party offering the policies most compatible with their strict Isolationist position, but in reality the position of both FDR and WW were not much apart and in ways offered little for holders of the Isolationist position the be excited about. When just a couple of weeks before election day FDR found that WW was dangerously close to him in the poll, it was he who gave in with ta speech in Boston assuring American parents that "your boys are not going to be sent into any Foreign War." There were other follow-up releases that dismayed Sherwood and other interventionists backers of FDR,
On election day Roosevelt won, but by a victory margin considerably reduced from the landslide returns in 1932 ans 1936. The book calls it the closest presidential election the previous 25 years. (This point is discussed in the book between pages 280 and the end of the Chapter.)
-
Jonathan--sorry I cannot help you really....I always thought we had no conscription...my father wished to be in the airforce, but due to his colourblindness he was not allowed into the airforce and actually worked in Calgary in the war effort ....my uncle was in the airforce and was shot down over the English channel but lived to fly again fortunately.
my father never talked about the war time till after my mother died and just before he died and he only talked about this woman he had met in Calgary and wanted to know if I could hunt for her on the internet....as I had been able to find the WW1 records of my grandfather and his enlistment in the war.
I thought they all volunteered ...I would have to research this as they are all
deceased.
amazing what I am learning thru this discussion....wish I could contribute more, but I feel out of my element especially not being around during the time we are talking about.
I'm just a 'baby-boomer' generation
-
YES, IT IS A GRAND DISCUSSION, BARBARA, AND OTHERS. THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR YOUR INTEREST, YOUR INSIGHTS, YOUR POSTS, now................
Turn on your C-Span, this weekend seems to be about FDR, the era we are discussing, fascinating. This morning I watched the re-dedication of FDR's library with many dignitaries there, FDR's granddaughter presiding. Stories galore. Ken Burns and author Geoffrey Ward are going to be doing a series on FDR on PBS next year. The man just lives on, his ideas, his presidency, his life.
Yesterday, I heard author Maury Klein - A CALL TO ARMS - talk about his book and we should be reading his book along with this discussion. What stories he had to tell, mobilization for war, getting factories that had been abandoned after WWI up and running - the HIggins boat - the Kaiser shipyards, lend-lease, taxation, price controls, rationing; the author claims more people were killed in the USA factories than were killed in the war. Isnt that amazing.
Two things we had going for us - we invented mass production and we had high octane gasoline. No other country could match those two things.
Listen to him here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TtmrNEctgYE
Of course, FDR figures large in all of this. What a giant!
-
True that, according to most records, our book, FDR kept assuring the public that their sons would not go to war. Personally, he must have known that they probably would be called, but being a good pollitician, believing it was necessary for him to carry on the presidency as other candidates did not have the international acumen for the job and knowing the majority of the public did not want to go to war, he continued with this platform.
I see nothing wrong with this, he had no proof we would be engaged in a war, why start a panic when there was no need.
We haven't talked much about Lindbergh and FDR - accusations. Does our author make too much of this controversty?
I don't know, it's politics as usual, in my mind with one big exception. The period in which they existed, a time of great peril in the world. Hitler and his armies marching through Europe, at the gates of Great Britain, and if that country was conquered where would Hitler strike next?
Lindbergh challenged FDR - some phrases in a speech to an America First rally - "Democracy doesn't exist today, even in our own country, government by subterfge" no "freedom of information."
Does this sound like Snowden today? What do you think will happen to Snowden if and when he gets back to this country? Did he do wrong?
-
I think the Presidential race was the highlight of the book - the real eye-opener! Even the years after the election before the war started - and the war itself, for that matter, did not seem to equal the drama of the election. Perhaps because we really didn't know what went on - other than the usual campaigning and mudslinging.
"FDR kept assuring the public that their sons would not go to war. I see nothing wrong with this, he had no proof we would be engaged in a war, why start a panic when there was no need."
Apparently, Robert Sherwood, who wrote those words for Roosevelt's speech right before the election, "your boys are not going to be sent into any foreign wars," felt otherwise, Ella. Olson writes "he thought it a terrible speech, regretted it for the rest of his life. Hundreds of Britons were dying every night in bombing raids - supply routes were being shut off.
FDR KNEW what he was saying was not the truth. Everyone knew, didn't they? Those close to the president felt that he should have taken prepared the people that war may be necessary. AFter the speech, Walter Lippman refused to support either candidate in his Herald Tribune. FDR himself considered this election a "smear on his record."
I can't imagine how I would have voted. Wendell Wilkie promising if he's President, he won't send the boys to the foreign war. He probably meant what he was saying. FDR takes the same position, but knows he will do the opposite, once elected. What were the American people to do? Olson writes, that in times of crisis, the American public sticks to the incumbent. And that was exactly what they did.
We haven't talked much about Lindbergh and FDR - accusations. Does our author make too much of this controversy? Ella
I think to the extent that Lindbergh was the spirit behind the America First movement - which was the powerful voice of FDR's opposition, the isolationists - and Wilkie, I don't think too much can be said for his influence on the election...and the battle that continued in the pre-war period before Pearl Harbor.
ps. What really motivated Robert Snowden when he compromised the liberties of millions of Americans, Ella? Could he - should he have handled the whistle-blowing differently - if that's what he in fact intended to do?
-
The Book Club Online is the oldest book club on the Internet, begun in 1996, open to everyone. We offer cordial discussions of one book a month, 24/7 and enjoy the company of readers from all over the world. Everyone is welcome.
August Book Club Online
THOSE ANGRY DAYS by Lynne Olson
Roosevelt, Lindbergh, and America’s Fight Over World War II, 1939-1941
| (http://www.seniorlearn.org/bookclubs/angrydays/angrydayscover.jpg) |
".............the definitive account of the debate over American intervention in World War II—a bitter, sometimes violent clash of personalities and ideas that divided the nation and ultimately determined the fate of the free world. - The New York Times
“In Those Angry Days, journalist-turned-historian Lynne Olson captures [the] period in a fast-moving, highly readable narrative punctuated by high drama. It’s . . . popular history at its most riveting, detailing what the author rightfully characterizes as ‘a brutal, no-holds-barred battle for the soul of the nation.’ It is sure to captivate readers seeking a deeper understanding of how public opinion gradually shifted as America moved from bystander to combatant in the war to preserve democracy.”—Associated Press |
| DISCUSSION SCHEDULE: |
| August 1-7 | Chapters 1-7 |
| August 8-14 | Chapters 8-14 |
| August 15-21 | Chapters 15-21 |
| August 22-28 | Chapters 22-28 |
Discussion Leaders: Ella (egibbons28@columbus.rr.com) & Harold (hhullar5@yahoo.com)
-
I got thinking last night and remembering incidents - how we kids tossed off the thoughts of the day - looks on my mother's face when I said some of these things at home or when we were walking here or there. My Grandmother was firm - Roosevelt could do not wrong - my Father was a hail all energetic sharing the latest news - my Mother did not say much at this time -
I knew from how she shared the photo album that had a whole page with a large, probably store bought, photo of young Lindbergh next to the Spirit of St. Louis and how she followed and talked about the kidnapping of their baby that she had a crush on the man - probably a movie star type crush. And during these years when Lindbergh's name came up she had a pained look in her eyes but thinking on it, I do not think it was completely because of what he was saying.
I remember seeing his photo in a newspaper and a couple of times on the newsreels - I kept thinking - and this is Lindbergh??!!?? - - for me the newsreel that showed him getting off the plane returning from Germany my immediate shock was why was he on a large commercial plane, thinking he only flew his small personal plane for the rest of his life - then looked and he was older but still had a spring in his step - later, the years '39 and '40 he aged into a nondescript middle aged man, usually wearing a dark overcoat - tubby in all the wrong place without the charisma of FDR or even the others speaking pro and con at the time - Middle aged Lindbergh was a rather dull looking man who looked more like a back room accountant.
I think for some there was an underlying disappointment that their hero did not look like their knight riding in on a horse - he spoke softly with no banners waving and so they turned their disappointment into either brushing him off, or like my mother not saying anything and some sounding angry. I bet the anger was mixed with their disappointment he did not look anything like the hero they built him up to be. Those in the know may have seen other dangers but for the average voter I think their disappointment that he no longer looked like their hero was a factor.
-
Ella Gibbonsas I write you am listening to Murray Klein talking about the book he wrote "A Call to Arms" lucky for me its at the library near here, and as the book is so long found a copy of it at the Lee County library system so can continue it when we travel south. Interesting man, and ironically couldn't see himself writing this book...but 10 years later a change of mind and voila....
-
Deb, can you put a reserve on the Lee County book from here and have it waiting for you?. But it's only August. Yes, I do remember that many Canadians enlisted willingly in both wars. But I also remember that many waited until they were called up. I was growing up in a very pacifist community, which included many refugees from revolutionary Russia. That made for very ambivalent feelings for some regarding Hitler's war-making. Some wanted him victorious in the east, but defeated in the west.
But our book reveals the many conflicted feelings of everybody. How can it be otherwise when the issues are war and peace.
Yes, Harold. I was struck by the politcal conflicts described in Chapter 17. In fact, for me it reeks of dirty tricks. FDR felt it was the sorriest of all his campaigns. Imagine, knowing that he can't speak the truth! Never have I read such a good account of what it means to occupy the Oval Office, at such a desperate time. A great man trying to plot a course for a great country that still had options.
-
"Imagine, knowing that he can't speak the truth! Never have I read such a good account of what it means to occupy the Oval Office, at such a desperate time. A great man trying to plot a course for a great country that still had options." - Jonathan
I agree, JONATHAN, but it's so easy with hindsight. Let us know what you think about the CALL TO ARMS book, DEB. Is it readable?
What would you think if you were in the audience listening to Lindberg in Sept. 1941? Here he is?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EBooiuDDlv0
-
this book is really playing with my mind.....I feel for Anne Lindberg...caught between her husband, and family yet loved by both it seems and supported by both as well...the book she wrote being a best seller but reviews and readers alike generally not very impressed with her writing
unbelievable the way that both men in the 1940 Presidential race felt obliged to change their story to the public about what their beliefs were as far as American support and sending men to the European war effort in aid of Britain----the British felt they had about 6 months left survival time with the surrounding German navy not to mention the continual bombing and destruction going on around them & lack of supplies reaching their shores
I don't think I've had this horrible picture of what it must have been like for the people living in Britain thru this....and everything seemed to be closing in hour by hour
Jonathan--yes I can reserve books before I leave for Florida....but I have a feeling that there won't be a lot of reserves on that book if any....I can check if there are online....what a wonderful thing the internet is...especially to do with libraries
-
this is interesting - some can say it is revisionist history however, I am remembering some of it about Germans in Poland being burned out - if only half of this is true it is probably what made Lindbergh see the war that was coming as a conflict between old European clans and nations.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7g0XyosEza8
-
Our PBS is showing a wonderful show about Churchill, right now 8-9. It looks like it's a series. God bless the BBC! Lol
-
Chapter 20 is somewhat hard to bellieve, I suppose, because we are not living in that era, we cannot walk in their shoes, and I have no idea which side I would be on - and I do think there are "sides" to this issue of whether we should be engaged in European affairs.
HAVE ANY OF YOU DECIDED WHICH COMMITTEE, WHICH VIEWPOINT, YOU MIGHT HAVE MADE DURING THOSE ANGRY DAYS?
-
So in these chapters the Lindbergh's return to the scene.....Ann is so very unhappy because their friends have all turned away from them.
pg. 247 "Her pain was compounded when she discovered that the French aviator and writer Antoine d Saint-Exupery was in New York and that because he was "on the other side," she would not be able to see him. The year before she had become emotionally involved with Saint Exupery after he wrote a highly laudatory preface to the French edition of her book Listen! The Wind."
Ella, you ask which side or committee we would chose if we lived in that era.
Well, I suppose we are indeed living pretty much the same today as then, just different president, different wars, and different names of the groups. I am a conservative, but also find myself somewhat leaning on certain issues such as staying out of the wars about religion in countries that continue to fight amongst themselves endlessly, although we also have to be there for our allies because we do not want to see tyrants and terrorists take over territories and governments. I suppose that is why I personally am comfortable being an Independent, who can sympathize with both parties/sides.
Much like the Lingberghs, I have seen in the past century, families and friendships end relationships, or turn on each other because of their political views and party allegiance. It's an extremely hurtful thing to happen and I have experienced it within my own family. I was shocked at the nastiness that has been displayed and so I can definitely relate to Ann's feelings of hurt and disappointment.
Gotta run for now, but be back later.
Ciao for now~
-
HAS ANY OF YOU DECIDED WHICH COMMITTEE, WHICH VIEWPOINT, YOU MIGHT HAVE MADE DURING THOSE ANGRY DAYS?
Difficult question, Ella. Hard to know whm to believe! Like bookad I didn't have an understanding of what it must have been like for the people living in Britain at this time. I'm going to admit that the suffering going on in Britain slipped from my radar screen, thinking there was time to decide what to do when/if the Germans turned their attention from Russia. I see how wrong I was - the Germans somehow make the time for steady bombing raids. When they do turn from Russia, it will be as easy to overcome the weakened British army and people - just as they did France. They need help now! But how do I know that for sure? How much true information am I getting from politicians. from the press, controlled by the politicians, as we've seen?
I was amazed that you were able to find Lindbergh's 1941 speech in Des Moines! (As stunned as I was when Pat brought us Wendell Wilkie's!) I thought it was a good speech, though his delivery seemed robotic, without passion. I could see why Anne advised him not to include the "Jewish group" - warning him that was all the people would remember. (But I felt his speech did provide questions to think about - I kept wondering at Lindbergh's motivation. He didn't want a political position...why does he put himself through this? Is it the principle involved? Hard to fault him for standing up for what he believes.) There seemed to be nothing for him to gain - but how do I know that? Maybe big business controls him? Maybe Hitler does)
Anne was right. They blew him out of the water - saying the only ones who were applauding his speech were Hitler, Mussolini, etc., that hey were the only ones who stood to gain if we did not enter the war. I dug up Jay Darling's political cartoon that appeared in Des Moines the next day - It says it all...
(http://seniorlearn.org/bookclubs/angrydays/lindbergh%20darling.jpg)
-
I feel for Anne Lindberg...caught between her husband, and family yet loved by both it seems and supported by both as well...bookad -
They say Charles was tone-deaf to the things he was saying when at the microphone. But what should he have done? He said what he believed - and did not hesitate from saying it. Should he have edited his speech to suit his audience - as everyone else was doing?
Anne was naive enough to believe that her book, Wave for the Future, would provide a basis for people to decide the answer to Ella's question above - recording her thoughts for both sides. It was odd, wasn't it? Her book became a best seller, sold out, and yet was highly criticized. It occurs to me that the gentle book I remember reading so long ago, Anne Morrow Lindbergh's A GIFT FROM THE SEA was also hers...published after the world. It too, a sellout.
-
Yes, the journalists had a field day with Lindbergh - I think they did as much to ridicule him that folks who believed we should have stayed out just dug their heels in deeper and simply became less public. From bits I am reading in several books it appears those who supported Lindbergh and where his associates urged him to make the speeches with conservative newscasters making radio time for him.
Interesting how we no longer hear how Russia was with Hitler for awhile - not sure when Stalin made the switch - and then Stalin only declared war on Japan days before they surrendered.
As to committee - not taking the question as a fantasy I would have stayed clear as we did then - we (our family) knew things were not right in Germany in 1938 and had become bad for professional Germans by 1939 - Although my great grandparents on both my mother and father's side were the ones who settled here we spoke German at home till the summer of 1939. During the war we joined in the war effort as every American however, before the war we kept a low profile. Interesting one of Churchill's advisers was Frederick Lindemann - the same name as my father's father.
-
aha - yes, Stalin and Hitler where on the same page - even together dividing up Poland till Hitler invades Russia in June of 1941.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_Union_in_World_War_II#Implementing_the_division_of_Eastern_Europe_and_other_invasions
-
Yes, BARBARA, that non-aggression pact was such a fraud wan't it? Hitler ignored it when he invaded Russia, it was a big mistake on his part, dividing his forces into two fronts. But great for the allies.
I believe - I don't know what page it is on - but it is in the book that we began to supply Russia with armaments. I know in Maury Klein's speech he indicated that to be true.
If I am remember correctly in listening to Klein Saturday, Edsel Ford was invited to Washington to inquire if Ford would make a diesel engine and Edsel said of course. But when he got home, Henry said No Way, we don't make parts for foreign companies. Wasn't Henry very anti-semitic? One would think he would have helped the Germans, knowing what Hitler was doing to the Jews.
It wasn't Ford, but someone in the War Production Office asked a manufactuer to start making tanks and the fellow said of course we will make them and then he said - What is a tank? So they found just one in the USA and mechanics took it apart piece by piece, labelled them and proceded back at the plant to tool them. It took a long time!!!
-
I would have found it very difficult - impossible almost - to make a decision if I were living then. I admired FDR for all the programs he had begun to put people to work. Everywhere we traveled some years ago there was a WPA or CCC project; I remember the most beautiful swimming pool I ever saw was done by tshe WPA. They did things very well, built to last.
Was Hoover Dam built in that period? I can't remember, don't have time to look it up.
But at the same time, I would lhave leaned toward the isolationists, hating the prospect of war, but supplying allies such as Britain? I think I would have understood.
And that is the secret, making Americans understand what their government is attempting to do. If commentators would stay out of the news, we would all be better off - talking with each other, making our decisions alone.
In the days we are reading about the public just had the radio.
Would it be better if just HEARD THE NEWS? Off to the dentist.............
-
'Chapter 20 is somewhat hard to believe.' Which committee? Which viewpoint?
Hobson's choice:
'Once the U.S. accepts the fact that we are at war, we shall at last find peace within ourselves.'
Henry Hobson, the Episcopal bishop of Cincinnati has joined the fray, the fierce debate involving the isolationists and the interventionists. And Dr. Seuss also, with his cartoon of a parade sign in New York reading, LINDBERGH FOR PRESIDENT IN 1944. That must have been a wake-up call for FDR. The opening words of the chapter are: 'The president's lethargy....'
Lindbergh's Des Moines speech is reprinted in full as a postscript in Roth's novel.
It is difficult getting the true measure of Charles Lindbergh. FDR saw him as an American Vallandigham. Others as an English Chamberlain. How about an American Gandhi?
-
My book is open to one paragraph in Chapter 20:
What the president battled....was not disloyalty but the doubts of a minority of Americans concerning the origins and purposes of the war. Instead of tackling those misgivings head on, admittedly a difficult task of education, FDR chose to discredit and dismiss them." (Richard Steele, pg. 310) Roosevelts' strategim-to question his critics' patriotism and accuse them of giving aid and comfort to the enemy-----would be used by a number of later presidents, including Lyndon Johnson, Ronald Reagan, and George W. Bush, when faced with opposition to their own foreign policy"[/color]
WHAT DO YOU THINK ABOUT THEIR STRATEGIES? It must be a winning one if presidents continued to use it?
-
I found these chapters a bit frustrating, because even though we know the outcome today, back then FDR seemed so weak and driven by the polls. I can't imagine passing bills and then just sitting on them and doing nothing. Imagine his administration's frustration with him. If it weren't for Stintman, Knox and the others would anything have gotten done? FDR may have passed bills in the New Deal to help America, but then again, Francis Perkins was the woman pushing him back then. Interesting how FDR gets all the credit for the accomplishments, when in reality he appears to me to be a "sitting" president letting everyone else do the real work. Our military would never have been built up, our airplanes, ships and arms would never have been produced had it not been for the foresight of those around him.
FDR is not a president I could see myself admiring, now that I know how truly inactive he was and how he had to be pushed into so many decisions. I like to see strength and strong decision making in my president. I think Wilkie would have not been a strong president either because he seemed to shoot himself in the foot a few times, just when he had the people/polls behind him. These two men frustrated me. Lindbergh at least KNEW what he felt, and was willing to stand up and take a lynching for it. Poor indecisive Ann, thinking she could write a book taking NO stand and try to speak for both views. Ughhh.....that was a disaster in the making. People can criticize you for taking a side but respect you for it, but to be wishy washy, there is no respect in that.
Ciao for now~
-
I see FDR using what appeared to be inactivity as time to allow the public to get behind an issue - his early days as president he simply, with little pushing required, got things done but we were in such a weakened condition as a nation that kind of leadership was a God send - Once he realized he had a Congress again that actually weakened his efforts so that there was a second "Roosevelt depression" he found he had to work with Congress and he realized because of the debacle over his attempt to change the Supreme Court he chose to act the Sphinx as he was depicted, allowing things to take their course while behind the scenes manipulating efforts, working with individuals and groups that would make a difference in the public arena.
I looked up and shared the flip flop on the part of Russia for two reasons - this is when Unions were being labeled "Red" and therefore, their support of the isolationists was being labeled akin to supporting Hitler. And then for the average person at the time to have any trust in Stalin was a problem - not just because of the communist fears but Russia was as much a part of taking Poland as Hitler with both nations carving up the territory. Russia more for its own hubris where Hitler was trying to re-connect the Germans, isolated within Poland after WWI, back to Germany. So I can see Lindbergh's analysis suggesting yet again, another conflict among the leaders of Old Europe.
After seeing the first part of the special on Churchill last night on PBS, - except that no one knew the devastation to the Jews as well as the population that did not fit Hitler's concept of a strong Aryan race or those who were independent thinkers, I would have seen Churchill as a man who itched for war and his life was about righting the wrongs of his early life and early political life by getting others to help him win. I do not think he or FDR had an inkling till we were all deep into the war what Hitler was doing however, the more I read, too bad Hitler was so twisted since he accomplished more to turn a nation around in 5 years than any other western nation including Roosevelt.
Reading this book and the various other books about the lead world characters at this time shows me how all folks act from good intentions and after a brutal war all the propaganda to urge on the troops and the people then become cemented as the cause and downfall of the losing side. Makes me want to review history because I think we are working with a one sided view - it is too easy to dismiss aberrant behavior as deranged and complex behavior as inexplicable therefore, the author puts their spin on these distortions. From the PBS special on Churchill he was as complex with distorted patterns of behavior as any however, his views won the day.
Aghast we can ask what good intentions from Hitler and yet, like Kaiser Wilhelm II, they both admired and wanted to capture for the German people the history left by Frederick the Great of the second Reich, and Friedrich Wilhelm I who founded the Prussian army and the rigid efficient bureaucracy while pushing 'a ramrod up the back of my people' - Kaiser Wilhelm I outlined in his army regulation 'When one takes the oath to the flag one renounces oneself and surrenders entirely even one's life and everything to the monarch...Through this blind obedience one receives the grace and confirmation of the title of soldier' - (sounds familiar, the explanation we had a difficult time swallowing after WWII) He also made Prussia economically self-sufficient in time of war - and his son, Frederick the Great, a musician whose compositions are still played, a poet and a military strategist famous for winning the Seven Years War, outnumbered and with his back against the wall.
Hitler followed in these footsteps carrying with him a portrait of Frederick the Great as a talisman. Robert Waite in his book on the Kaiser and Führer tells us how, "In April 1945, with allied armies closing in from all sides, he (Hitler) eagerly reread pages in the German translation of Carlyle's biography in search of a miraculous sign that he, like the beleaguered Friedrich of 1762, would suddenly be rescued by the death of an arch-enemy." Hitler believed the sudden death of Roosevelt was his sign.
Again, reading this months choice by Ella and Harold is allowing us to see all sides of these world leaders and I'm realizing just because they win or lose they are not perfect or, the deranged, personification of evil.
-
BarbStAubrey, " I'm realizing just because they win or lose they are not perfect or, the deranged, personification of evil."
I agree with you on this point. I don't judge a president on his wins and loses, because how they get to them could alter my views as to whether they rightly deserve the credit for either, although history will put it in their column regardless. As for deranged or personification of evil, their is no doubt in my mind Hitler was just that, in my opinion.
I didn't get a chance to view the PBS special. Thank you for all your research and sharing it with us. It sure helps see different sides to complicated issues.
Ciao for now~
-
FDR's leadership qualities:
" keep your ends certain but your means flexible. In the period 1939-1941, Roosevelt transformed America from a divided and hesitant middle power into a global leader. He pushed isolationism to the margins of national life. He carried the country with him – and into the war.
Making this journey required great care and subtlety. FDR’s tactical shifts were ceaseless, yet behind them all a clear and inexorable direction can be discerned. To adapt his own metaphor, he steered his government like one of his beloved sailboats, tacking this way and that for advantage, sometimes drifting, but finally bringing her into his chosen port."
http://blogs.wsj.com/speakeasy/2013/07/04/five-lessons-on-leadership-from-fdr/
Back later -
-
"Making this journey required great care and subtlety."
Just how "subtle" was FDR during the Presidential election that preceded our entry into the war? You asked, what we thought of the politican strategies..."It must be a winning one if presidents continued to use it?"
Again, not an easy question, Ella! Didn't you see that election as more between FDR and Charles Lindbergh? Between intervention and isolation? FDR seems to be treating Wendell Wilkie as if he doesn't exist, doesn't count - and turns his attention to Lindbergh who seems to be attracting the American public to the isolationist approach. Does FDR really believe that Lindbergh is a "Nazi" - a "Fascist" as his adminstration, with FDR's approval, is labelling him? If so, he was right to alert the public to this and to question Lindbergh's motivation in urging isolationism. But if this is an election strategy to frighten Americans, then FDR's integrity was diminished in my opinion.
"It is difficult getting the true measure of Charles Lindbergh. FDR saw him as an American Vallandigham." Jonathan. I'm going to have to google Vallandigham, - but I agree that Charles Lindbergh was (and remains) an enigma.
Vallandigham: Clement Laird Vallandigham was an Ohio politician, and leader of the Copperhead faction of anti-war Democrats during the American Civil War. - delivered a speech titled "The Great American Revolution" to the House of Representatives. He accused the Republican Party of being "belligerent" and advocated "choice of peaceable disunion upon the one hand, or Union through adjustment and conciliation upon the other
The specifications of the charge against Vallandigham were:
Declaring the present war "a wicked, cruel, and unnecessary war"; "a war not being waged for the preservation of the Union"; "a war for the purpose of crushing out liberty and erecting a despotism"...
While in the Googling mode, I decided to look up the other label attributed to C. Lindbergh during this election -
Fascist: -
Philosophy of government that stresses the primacy and glory of the state, unquestioning obedience to its leader, subordination of the individual will to the state's authority, and harsh suppression of dissent. Martial virtues are celebrated, while liberal and democratic values are disparaged.
"The word fascist is sometimes used to denigrate people, institutions, or groups that would not describe themselves as ideologically fascist, and that may not fall within the formal definition of the word"
-
JoanP. "You asked, what we thought of the politician strategies..."It must be a winning one if presidents continued to use it?"
Indeed they do continue to use it and win with it. This past election I was appalled how a decent, caring, intelligent, experienced person like Romney was trashed by the media and the president. If we were back in FDR's election I am sure he would have been called a Nazi/fascist. Anything goes in elections and now I realize its gone on forever, not just since I have become politically aware in the 70's. Clinton and Bush both had people trying to make them out to be draft dodgers. Obama had the birthers trying to prove he was not even an American citizen. You would like to think we are better than this and that we could respect those running our country would have a bit more decency. It's the lay of the land and I don't ever see it changing.
JoanP, " Does FDR really believe that Lindbergh is a "Nazi" - a "Fascist" as his administration, with FDR's approval, is labelling him?
I did not get the impression FDR believed it, but that didn't matter because he knew it would be something to discredit anything Lindbergh would say to the American people. Lindbergh did indeed have an affect on the American people when he spoke, a real threat to FDR.
Do you think any of these presidents, reporters, politicians, etc., ever have regrets of their tactics/behavior after elections? I like to think they are good people ignoring their morals and values, because the end justifies the means when it comes to winning elections.
Ciao for now~
-
I think that in all of these these chapters from the beginning FDR has show himself above all else a politician. I think also that he recognized the pure evil of the Nazi government in Germany and realized that without Britain the US would stand alone against an enemy in control of the whole of Europe and much of Asia. From the beginning he wanted to do what he could to keep Britain in the war. To this end he won changes in US law to permit sale of war supplies to Britain but Cash and Carry, also he enabled transfer of 50 WWI destroyers and began a significant US rearmament program and a military conscription law. But by the middle of 1941 Britain was broke.
Our book details how the British Ambassador, Lord Lothian engineered the passage of new legislation called the Lend-Lease act through the US Congress over the bitter opposition of the Isolationist. Lothian first had to get Churchill to write a letter to FDR detailing how broke Britain really was. FDR gingerly presented a plan called lend-Lease under which Britain would be loaned or leased war maters. The Isolationists screamed, "No Way." Lothian turned on a campaign that included his speaking to American Interventionist groups explaining how necessary the act was for England to remain in the war. Little by little progress was made mainly by the inclusion of provision including provision inserted by Isolationists including one that it would not become effective until 2 months after the act was signed. Thus it did become law early in 1942 but its use was delayed he 2 months. It was the Backbone of the flow of US war equipment went to Britain during the rest of the war. After this law became effective in the summer of 1940 It became a significant source of modern arms, munitions and and other War essentials. It assured the presence of a strong and effective trained allied army through the remainder of the War.
-
When I returned from lunch as I passed my open message slot, I saw someone, as yet unidentified, had placed 7 pages torn from Newsweek magazines. Each page was from a different Newsweek dated between Feb 27, 1939 and March 4, 1940. Each of these pages were centered on the National political news breaking that week. Most of these pages related to the latest news on the coming, but yet distant 1940, Presidential election. The second earliest page dated Dec 11, 1939 has a political cartoon featuring possible interested candidates as Vandenberg, McNut, Garner, Taft, and Dewey. McNut (I think) and Garner were Democrats, the rest republicans. There is no mention of Wendel Willkie in ane of these Magazines. FDR is mentioned in a cartoon in a later page as a magician sawing “lady Democratic Party" in two. The caption reads, “No fooling Boss! You did saw her in two!”
Of course all of these pages were published before the German blitzkrieg swept across France and the Low Countries to leave England alone so I guess it’s not surprising to find no mention of the war at those early dates. I suspect that by Election day in Nov 1940 it was getting quite a bit of notice.
An aside article in the Dec 18, 1939 issue also caught my attention. It was about the conclusion of a criminal trial in a Texas court of our former Mayor and 20th district Congressman. This was Maury Maverick who had been charged of the crime of paying the Poll tax of several voters. Maury was the grandson of the first Maury Maverick who had fought in the Texas Revolution, and as a 19th Century Texas Rancher had put the word,”Maverick” in the English dictionary. Do look it up!.
-
It's all very interesting. It's an extraordinary book. The politics of it all boggle the mind. I'm convinced Machiavelli would have read it with great interest.
Bellamarie finds disturbing evidence that for the characters in the book, including the president 'the end justifies the means when it comes to winning elections.'
Harold observes that 'from the beginning FDR shows himself above all else a politician.'
On the other hand, Barbara makes a case for the statesman Hitler, without condoning his evil actions. I've just come home with a copy of Ian Kershaw's HITLER 1936 - 1945. I've been meaning to read it for years.
And also I couldn't resist buying Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, beautifully illustrated. I was born too soon to enjoy it as a child. I'll look at it now and then pass it along to my 5-year-old neighbor, a very friendly little guy.
The author, of course, is Roald Dahl, mentioned in our book as one of those British agents in New York doing intelligence work.
Thanks, Ella, for the link to 'Five lessons on leadership from FDR. Very interesting. Especially for the choice of men that FDR used to implement his policies: Welles, Donovan, Hopkins, Willkie, and Harriman.
Willkie is certainly the odd man in the list. He worked so closely with FDR after the election. Harry Hopkins was in WW's campaign manager's NY apartment soon after the polls closed and spent the night in discussion. One has to wonder if WW and FDR were close before the election. There are a lot of suspicious aspects about the Republican nomination convention. Perhaps it was the ultimate political machination of all from the old pro FDR.
JoanP, FDR looked back to Lincoln and his experience with a house divided. There he came across the problem Lincoln had with Vallandigham, the Charles Lindbergh of that era.
-
The politics of it all boggle the mind- Jonathan
And I am lost in it. I must try to get a grip on these chapters before we forge into the last ones of the book.
I have a question that some of you can answer:
Why did Lindbergh make these speeches?
He knew certainly that he was a poor speaker, his wife and MIL were not in favor of them, I don't understand why he subjected himself to this criticism. He should have just flown around the country where all would have applauded a hero and basked in their adulation.
-
Democracy, Lindbergh told an America First rally - "doesn't exist today, even in our own country."
This coming from someone who admired the Germans, their efficiency, their goverment.
Further, he says we have in this country - "government by suberfuge ."
HE charged that FDR had denied Americans "freedom of information - the right of a free people to know where they are being led by their government." (pg.316)
Is this a TRAITOROUS POINT OF VIEW? (think Snowden)
-
Theodor Geisel (Dr. Seuss, whom my children loved) - his political cartoons:
http://theodorgeisel.weebly.com/political-cartoons.html
-
Harold, I'm interested in learning the identity of the party who put those articles in your message box...someone who is quite aware of the period we are discussing here...someone who felt it was worth tearing pages from those quite valuable magazines, I would imagine!
Just finished chapter 21- the espionage described here! Was the American public aware of it, did our parents feel concerned about their privacy? Or was it confined to Members of Congress, embassies...big cities, like Manhattan. Why, the FBI is even spying on the organization that will become the CIA! ( do you suppose this is going on today?) Hoover believes the OSS is in violation of existing espionage acts.
Can't help thinking about the far more sophisticated spying methods going on today...the invasion of privacy of not only government officials, political campaigns, but private industry and millions of Americans - like us. Think NSA investigations! Will our grandchildren ask how we felt about this invasion of our privacy? How do you feel?
With the relentless spying, I thought it interesting to read that the FBI never found any clear-cut evidence linking America First with Germany.
-
Was posting responses to some posts I read last night before turning in (" turning in" - an interesting expression, isn't it - what does it mean?) - Not ignoring your questions, Ella. They are important ones. Will be back this afternoon.
Jonathan - such a sweet gesture, passing the Chocolate Factory book on to the little guy...he'll love it - it is timeless.
I did a quick search, looking for a specific connection between master spy, Roald Dahl, and his delightful children's story...found this:
"The story was originally inspired by Roald Dahl's experience of chocolate companies during his schooldays. Cadbury would often send test packages to the schoolchildren in exchange for their opinions on the new products. At that time (around the 1920s), Cadbury and Rowntree's were England's two largest chocolate makers and they each often tried to steal trade secrets by sending spies, posing as employees, into the other's factory. Because of this, both companies became highly protective of their chocolate making processes. It was a combination of this secrecy and the elaborate, often gigantic, machines in the factory that inspired Dahl to write the story.
Back later, Ella!
-
> Harold, I'm interested in learning the identity of the party who put those articles in your message box...someone who is quite aware of the period we are discussing here...someone who felt it was worth tearing pages from those quite valuable magazines, I would imagine!
The old Newsweek pages as I suspected came from another resident here at Chandler who is a 47 year tenured history Professor at San Antonio College. It seems he was culling out old Magazines. Don"t be too shocked, I did the same thing with my old Life magazines in 2006 when I sold my house. Magazines of this type are well archived at libraries across the country and they have no value and at used book stores. I had previously discussed with him this discussion and he thought correctly that I might find discussion material in them. And they certainly did, as I noted yesterday the articles pictured an American mindset completely innocent of any idea of war or the possibility of War. None of the possible candidates , Democrat or Republican, made it to either tickets that finely evolved.'
Regarding the privacy issue; in the 1940's right to privacy was assumed a common law right (a man's home is his castle where even the King cannot enter). There is no reference to it in the US constitution. Also in the 1940 Governments did not have the means to probe into individual activities as they do today. Historically the Courts have shied away from cases involving involving privacy, Though the 1973 Roe V Wade abortion decision was based in part on a right to privacy, and I understand a few later cases have strengthen privacy rights, and that the new term that begins in October may provide the court with the opportunity to rule further on the issue.
-
< why did Lindbergh make those speeches >
Good question, Ella. There were many others, associated with Americal First, who were making speeches. But Lindbergh was the one to be vilified by those who thought he was too influential in advocacy of isolation. Without evidence to the contrary, I will go on thinking of him as concerned citizen wanting to keep his country out of war.
I'm convinced Lindbergh was very well informed. He had friends in he military, connections in the business world, and sources in the diplomatic corps. He seems to have read the public mood as well as the president.
-
The real problem with Lindbergh's speech particularly the one in Oct 1941 to the America first group was that it was obviously anti-semantic. He had previewed it with his wife who advised to rewrite it without the obviously jewish slurs. This was his last speach until after the War was over.
-
Today represents the completion of our 3rd week’s discussion. Tomorrow we will move on the fourth and last discussion week. The subject will include the concluding last 7 chapters. I found this material the most interesting part of the book including a number of surprises relative to negotiations during the remaining days of peace, the surprising way in which our official War began, Army training, command structure, and the management of the war. In addition Chapter 28 is a final conclusion centering on of the wartime and after careers of some of the principals including Lindbergh and Hap Arnold..
-
Remembering:
Fiorella La Guardia, mayor of New York City during this period, a colorful personality, a man who got things done
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiorello_La_Guardia
Edward L. Murrow, how can we forget this radio personality, very brave reporter stationed in England during the blitzkreig:
http://www.pbs.org/wnet/americanmasters/episodes/edward-r-murrow/this-reporter/513/
-
hi there
I am just finishing up chapter 21....when I was reading chapter 19 though I was thoroughly mesmerized and was locked into the reading as if not knowing what the ending was going to be like and waiting with baited breath for what was going to happen next (as if it was a fiction work)....couldn't believe how I was getting caught up in the fight going on between the two groups pro-war and stay-away from war
seems people get caught up in their own little lives and forget the bigger picture like what if Hitler had managed to subdue Britain like he was very close to doing....scary
so many people at this time period seem to have diaries ready to be explored later by histories descendants (us at this point in time)....do we have as many people with diaries today for tomorrows people to delve into so they may have explanations of what we are up to today!!!!!
-
I think Lindbergh gave the speech because he truly does not want to see the U.S. enter the war. He was the one member of the group, America First. who the people would listen to. Sometimes when you have a conviction, you need to stand up and be heard, even if it is not always popular or received positively.
Okay, been trying to finish up the last chapters. Lo and behold Hollywood has entered the building. Or was that Elvis has left the building. Oh well....what ever, why does it not surprise me how much influence the producers and actor/actresses would attempt to have on whether we should enter the war through movie making. What a novel idea.....NOT!
Ciao for now~
-
BOOKAD - Deb - I wondered too at the men in the book keeping diaries. I never knew a man who kept a diary, women, yes. However, these men, perhaps, realized the seriousness of events and wanted to write them down.
I hope men and women in politics or industry today are keeping diaries or journals so that future generations can understand motives for actions. Historians of the future need something; we don't write letters anymore, so diaries or journals will be very important.
You're right, BELLEMARIE, Lindbergh did have a good reason for his speeches. I must delve into the last chapters of the book today.
-
The Book Club Online is the oldest book club on the Internet, begun in 1996, open to everyone. We offer cordial discussions of one book a month, 24/7 and enjoy the company of readers from all over the world. Everyone is welcome.
August Book Club Online
THOSE ANGRY DAYS by Lynne Olson
Roosevelt, Lindbergh, and America’s Fight Over World War II, 1939-1941
| (http://www.seniorlearn.org/bookclubs/angrydays/angrydayscover.jpg) |
".............the definitive account of the debate over American intervention in World War II—a bitter, sometimes violent clash of personalities and ideas that divided the nation and ultimately determined the fate of the free world. - The New York Times
“In Those Angry Days, journalist-turned-historian Lynne Olson captures [the] period in a fast-moving, highly readable narrative punctuated by high drama. It’s . . . popular history at its most riveting, detailing what the author rightfully characterizes as ‘a brutal, no-holds-barred battle for the soul of the nation.’ It is sure to captivate readers seeking a deeper understanding of how public opinion gradually shifted as America moved from bystander to combatant in the war to preserve democracy.”—Associated Press |
| DISCUSSION SCHEDULE: |
| August 1-7 | Chapters 1-7 |
| August 8-14 | Chapters 8-14 |
| August 15-21 | Chapters 15-21 |
| August 22-28 | Chapters 22-28 |
Discussion Leaders: Ella (egibbons28@columbus.rr.com) & Harold (hhullar5@yahoo.com)
-
I wonder if ship captains still keep a log - several of these characters were in the Navy where you where expected to keep a daily log and so their habit would have been formed in their early adult years.
-
Ella, "I hope men and women in politics or industry today are keeping diaries or journals so that future generations can understand motives for actions. Historians of the future need something; we don't write letters anymore, so diaries or journals will be very important."
Do you suppose with all the secrets and lies they would give an honest account if they did keep a diary today? I would love it if one day we could have something to help us understand the reasons why certain actions were taken or NOT taken in serious situations that have happened from about 1970 til today. But then again, would it really make a difference in how we feel about it? Maybe.....it's kind of like when someone hurts you or lies, sometimes knowing the why eases the pain, allows for forgiveness and let's you see it from their inner perspective making it possibly more acceptable or at least understandable. Sometimes I feel like trying to understand presidents and politicians are a bit like the teaching of God...we are not to question, just have faith. Or at least hope they are looking out for America's best interest. Okay a bit too deep in thought this morning....going to try to finish the book today.
Ciao for now~
-
I would think most politicians are afraid to keep diaries, Ella! Do you think the presidents still keep tapes - or did that end with Nixon's? His read like a diary, didn't they?
"...waiting with baited breath for what was going to happen next (as if it was a fiction work)" bookad
I feel the same way about the months right before the war, bookad - as described in the next chapter (28.) At the end, I found myself wondering what would have happened without the Pearl Harbor attack? The country was so unprepared for war - not even attempting to build an army or an aresenal in the event of war. Our economy was booming! As St. Exupery put it - "Americans are spending 90% on cars and chewing gum, !0% to stop Hitler." I was just a little kid at the time - but remember well the new car - and the big new house we moved into in 1941!
I was interested when Harry Truman made his appearance - made it real, realizing that in not so many years, he'd be the next president. The conclusion t of the Senate investigation into our defense program he initiated, - "we are in a mess."
Do you think the ship logs would reflect the low morale of the servicemen, Barb? I wonder how many of the draftees wrote letters home expressing their frustration... Hopefully they have been preserved somewhere - as good as diaries, I would think. 50% of them threatened to desert if not discharged after their one year was up. They see no emergency that should require them to stay longer than they were assigned when drafted.
I was surprised, and then not surprised to read of the Gallup pollster's promise do everything to serve the president's needs, to design its polls to serve the president by influencing public opinion - as long as their connection was kept secret. How do you read today's polls on significant issues?
Months before Pearl Harbor, the Gallup poll revealed two things -
1. 70% want America to keep out of war
2. 70% want to do everything to defeat Hitler, even war.
I suppose the result did what it set out to do - reflected the President's quandary. Did it help him? How on earth would this have been decided, had it not been for Pearl Harbor?
-
Polls --- I quit answering any of them - they call after mailing me they would call - I am uncomfortable - I do not know them and do not trust my information is protected - most polls I find are simply excuses to continue to keep you on their mailing, email, phone list - unless I recognize a long distance phone number I let my phone do the answering - if the call is from someone who really knows me they will leave a message - for awhile I was receiving a Nielsen chart to fill out and let that go as well - I find polls today to be a joke.
-
I agree with BARBARA about phone calls and polls
I don't understand, JOANP, why politicians could not keep a diary? Keep it at home - when they retire it will refresh their memory when they write their book! Many do.
Nixon did not keep a diary - he recorded every conversation in the oval office (which, of course, is illegal to tape conversations unless the party knows it)- they are very revealing and disgusting to hear him cussing at times. I would imagine they are onlin. He believed the tapes would help him in writing his book in the future; instead they revealed much about him that would have sent him to prison if Ford had not pardoned him.
BELL - yes, I believe they would be honest if it were a private diary kept at hom and had it understood by their heirs that it would be destroyed at their death. Why wouldn't they?
Chapter 21 - WHO IS DER FUHRER THANKING?
-
The Nixon tapes - excerpts
http://nixon.archives.gov/virtuallibrary/tapeexcerpts/index.php
-
That is an interesting bit on polling the public and the uses made of it, in Chapter 22. It seems some leaders feel they cannot lead without them. Quoting from page 343:
'If only he (the president) would lead, they said, the people would follow. Among those who argued this position was Hadley Cantril, a social psychologist who had become, in effect, Roosevelt's private pollster....Cantril's group helped design questions for the Gallup pollsters and conducted its own analyses of Gallup data. A strong liberal and FDR loyalist. Cantril offered his services to the White House, making it clear he would do everything he could to make the polls on which he worked serve the president's needs: "We can get confidential information on questions you suggest, follow up any hunches you may care to see tested regarding the determination of opinion, and provide you with the answers to any questions asked."
I doubt if a really strong leader ever consulted the polls. Had FDR dismissed his Brain Trust by the late thirties? The book conveys the impression that he was drifting, almost floundering in the heavy seas.
Where's the anger promised in the title? Could this book make for mad readers?
There is one diary I want to get my hands on. Icke's. That villain.
-
I have vol 1 of 6 written by Sir Winston Churchill about the history of world war 2....the volume I have ends with his becoming the Prime Minister of England....it would be interesting to read details in the volume describing the time frame we are dealing with in this book....everyone has their own perspective though (imagine reading Hitler's diary) ....apparently he (Winston) saved "every scrap of significant material for the books he knew he would eventually write. Every order he issued, every memorandum or personal telegram, was immediately set up in type, printed, and filed.''
-
Did any of you watch 'Our Nixon' the other night? Wasn't that interesting?
-
Dear old Winnie. The only opinion he ever consulted was his own.
-
Regarding politician, I know from the many published late life career memoirs published by many WWII principles indicate their propensity to keep diarys and other detailed records. Nixon of course came to regret his use of the White House recording facilities. In his case I think his eager use was vanity inspired. I understand the facilities even more modernized and enhanced are still operating in the Oval office today. Perhaps the modern occupants of that most prestigious office have learned that sometimes it is nice to work in the rose garden.
Regarding Politian’s attitude toward acting according to the prevailing Public opinion polls, I am more inclined to believe they do tend of pay attention to them. For me I think FDR in particular early on understood that if Hitler was to be stopped it would have to be through a victorious war. He seemed willing to aid England toward that end whenever he thought the American people and of course in particular the Congress would let him.
Regarding the German/Soviet alliance treaty there is a good wikiedpia article on it. It was signed just 2 Week before the war began. Apparently it divided Poland between Germany and Russia. On September 1st Germany invaded Poland from the West. Later the Soviet Union took its half from the east. Though the treaty included mutual non-aggression pledges, on June 22,1941 Stalin found out just how much the non-aggression pledge was worth to Hitler
-
I heard on the news yesterday that the last Nixon tapes were just released and they thought Nixon while talking to Reagan sounded like Nixon was drunk.
Which do you think is more credible, a personal journal or tape recordings, or do you think there would be no difference?
While I tend to think they both would be credible, I tend to lean toward the validity of the tape recordings, (provided they have not been edited.) I think the difference between journal writing vs using tape recordings to keep track of accounts and conversations is:
1. Journaling, you are the only one who is giving the account, so once someone reads said journal it is one sided, that of the writer. So you are getting what that individual has interpreted or perceived, so their perception of things are not necessarily how others involved would have perceived it.
2. When tape recording, I feel a person can at times get so comfortable and involved in the conversation, they forget they are being taped, which can reveal much more than intended, as in Nixon's case. In tape recording you get a voice of the people that allows you to hear the annunciation and attitude, allowing you to get the individuals personality and state of mind.
Since being more active in social sites on line I have come to realize that when you read a person's comments you can very easily misinterpret their intent. Reading someones words allows you to place emphasis on what you personally are vested in. If you then speak to the person, say on the phone or in person, you may actually see what you read, in an entirely different light.
So the final chapters and FDR is forced to enter a war!
pg. 424 "Dec. 4, 1941...During the intermission , the Philharmonic radio audience heard CBS announcer John Charles Daly break in with a stunning news bulletin's Japanese had bombed Pearl Harbor. At that moment, Schlesinger later wrote, "an era came to an end." It was also the end of the debate over America's involvement in the war."
The members asking FDR how could we not be ready is a bit confusing to me because they worked with him and could see what he refused to do to prepare.
pg. 425 "Early in the evening, he (FDR) summoned cabinet members and congressional leaders to the White House......Tempers ran high at the meeting. Jumping to his feet, a red-faced Senator Tom Connally, the new chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, banged a table with his fist and exclaimed: "How did they catch us with our pants down, Mr. President?" His head bowed, Roosevelt said softly, "I don't know, Tom. I just don't know." Henry Stimson posed the same question: How could the U.S. military, "who had been warned long ago and were standing on the alert, have been taken so completely by surprise?"
How weak did FDR look to his administration replying, "I don't know." He had dragged his feet in building up the military, he dragged his feet in making a decision to help Britian, he dragged his feet in deciding to enter the war and as the saying goes, "Nero fiddled while Rome was burning" So here we are, FDR forced to finally make a decision. No more dragging his feet, no more indecisiveness. Yet he is still worrying about public opinion and asks this question:
pg. 246 "At one point, the president asked Murrow and Donovan what both considered a rather curious question. Did they believe that, given the Japanese attack on U.S. soil, the American people would now support a declaration of war? "
He may have been considered a good president in the years of the New Deal, but for me leading up to World War 11, he seemed to lack courage and leadership in leading the U.S., and relied heavily on the polls for deciding what to do next. When in all reality we read the polls were tampered with to appease him.
Ciao for now~
-
Sounds to me more like the guy could not win for losing - earlier, after he figured out a new approach to the dilemma of helping Britain, which would have put us in a more able position at least in production of arms, we had everyone from leadership within the military, and manufacturers dragging their feet trying to sabotage the whole Lend lease operation so that it was a joke and a slap in the face to Britain - he could not get the country moving - it looks to me like none of these folks want to own their part in our being so unprepared.
This is what amazes me, how in the military especially they can disobey the president and persuade other military leaders to act the opposite of what the president wants - I thought the president was Commander in Chief - maybe he is only Commander in Chief during war - I do not know - but civilians fighting among themselves I can understand but the military taking it into their head to do what they want I just do not understand.
We know the office of the president is not a dictatorship and yet, some presidents attempt to treat the position as if it were - however, to read the mood of the people is not easy when strong conflicting viewpoints are part of daily input through mail from the public, various newspapers as well as, differing views among those who have leadership positions - Lindbergh sure become more and more outspoken and he represented a large group and so it appears to me Roosevelt was working with a very divided nation that would not put up with the likes of a Churchill approach since anything that appeared to be dictatorial was too much like the authority we associate with a monarchy or a dictatorship. There were some who already thought Roosevelt was acting too much the dictator.
To me this book only shows how we want to blame and really there is no one to blame - everyone holds sincere views and a real democracy includes the freedom to voice and support differeing views. We may voice the concept of a 'more perfect union' but I think we assume a perfect union that can achieve a utopian existence is possible - I think achieving the sought after happiness-utopia is less so where every viewpoint has an equal footing, where various views are shared by a huge percentage of voters. These views become causes taking on a life of their own so that all those who are remotely behind a viewpoint become a force. When two forces emerge there is a clash - we thought the Viet Nam war caused a clash and here is evidence disruptive clashes still existed after the Civil War.
We do not want any tampering with outcome and yet, we seem to exact severe punishment for those who uncover secret tampering or according to the wind those whose secrets are uncovered. Really Woodward and Bernstein were the Snowden of their day. Amazing how the wind blows.
-
'but I remember well the new car - and the big new house we moved into in 1941!' from JoanP.
There's part of the answer, Barb, why manufacturers were dragging their feet. No money to be made with lend-lease. Can't do business with a country that's broke.
Do you know that U.S. people were doing a good business with Japan, supplying them with things necessary to carrying out their aggressions in China until well into 1939?
"How did they catch us with our pants down, Mr. President?" His head bowed, Roosevelt said softly, "I don't know, Tom. I just don't know."
Good quote, Bellamarie. The Japanese blindsided the president, who was in any case totally distracted by the Brits and domestic politics. He spent too much time worrying about guys like Lindbergh. See page 435 on the pressure he put on Attorney General Francis Biddle to indict twenty-eight American-Fascists on charges of sedition.
Here's a happy note, from page 452: 'In 1954, President Dwight D. Eisenhower reinstated Lindbergh in the Air Force Reserve, with the rank of brigadier general.'
I've thought so all along. Lindbergh was a caualty of the war. I was disappointed that even Anne would not support him. The Desmoines speech was a sincere attempt at truth. Of course it alarmed the Brits at BSC and others who were fighting for their lives. Interesting to read that the Anti-Defamation League had offices across the hall from BSC.
-
BarbStAubrey, Sounds to me more like the guy could not win for losing - earlier, after he figured out a new approach to the dilemma of helping Britain, which would have put us in a more able position at least in production of arms, we had everyone from leadership within the military, and manufacturers dragging their feet trying to sabotage the whole Lend lease operation so that it was a joke and a slap in the face to Britain - he could not get the country moving - it looks to me like none of these folks want to own their part in our being so unprepared.
I did not get that impression. FDR was president, HE should have set the pace and showed leadership which he failed to do leaving his military, administration, Britain and the American people constantly trying to figure out why he refused to lead and take action.
pg. 288 "Four days after signing Lend-Lease into law, Franklin Roosevelt went before the White House Correspondents Association to declare, "Our democracy has gone into action...Every plane, every instrument of war that we can spare now, we will send overseas." Those listening to him were struck by the president's fervor and sense of urgency as he underscored the vital importance of this new effort to save Britain and help defeat Hitler. "Here in Washington," he continued, "we are thinking in terms of speed, and speed now. And I hope that that watchword--'speed, and speed now'--will find its way into every home in the nation."
Roosevelt's energy and combativeness that night reminded some in the audience of a warrior donning his armor for battle. To Raymond Clapper, FDR's address "was a fighting speech without the troops, a speech that the president might make after war had been declared." But then...nothing happened. As was true following a number of other rousing speeches by Roosevelt, little was done afterward to transform his rhetoric into reality."
pg. 289 "During the crucial weeks and months following Lend-Lease's passage, Roosevelt seemed disinclined to do much about the problem. According to FDR biographer Kenneth S. Davis, "a strange, prolonged, exceedingly dangerous pause in presidential leadership" set in.
pg. 290 " Whatever the reasons for the president's torpor, it was causing restiveness and unease in Washington and throughout the country. A government report on current public opinion noted considerable dissatisfaction with FDR's handling of both domestic and international matters. "The one course more disastrous than having no policy at all is to decide upon a policy and then fail to fulfill it."
pg. 292 From the day Stimson joined the administration, he acted as a spur to Roosevelt, prodding him to lead rather than follow public opinion. But of the issue of convoy protection, the president stubbornly resisted Stimson's attempts at persuasion, as he did all other effforts on the subject.
pg. 294 After a walk with Harry Hopkins, Treasury Secretary Henry Morgenthau noted in his diary that both Roosevelt and Hopkins "are groping as to what to do. They feel that something has to be done but don't know just what. Hopkins said...he thinks the President is loath to get into war and would rather follow public opinion than lead it." In mid-May, Roosevelt told Morgenthau: "I am waiting to be pushed in."
Throughout the entire book, the author shows Roosevelt lacked leadership, and waited for public opinion. Americans wanted a leader. Every time Roosevelt made a speech and got a bill passed the polls would show the people were behind him. Yes, he had the America First group disagreeing with him, but ultimately the people would support him. As soon as he gave the green light, once Pearl Harbor attacked, and he no longer could drag his feet and stay out of war, the factories, manufacturers, military men, etc. etc. willingly gave him there best and fastest aide. They wanted and needed Roosevelt's leadership.
I strongly feel had Japan not attacked Pearl Harbor, and Roosevelt did not have to deal with any threats directly with American soil, he would not have entered the war on Britain's behalf, or the war may have dragged on much longer without our boots on the ground.
-
Jonathon, "Here's a happy note, from page 452: 'In 1954, President Dwight D. Eisenhower reinstated Lindbergh in the Air Force Reserve, with the rank of brigadier general.'
Yes, indeed it was a happy note for me as well. Regardless of a person's view, pro or con, when we are in war time you must set aside your differences and come together for the good of the country. No one would be more beneficial to our country as far as knowledge of aircraft as Lindbergh. Henry Ford was well aware of it and was smart enough to go beyond the administration and hire Lindbergh. When I read this I felt like, hip, hip, hooray! It was a "Spirit of St. Louis" moment, and I could just hear....Up we go into the wild blue yonder.......
But then the euphoria changes in the last pages of the book when the author reveals the character of Lindbergh the family man. But I will discuss this later....for now, I want to relish in the fact Lindbergh found his rightful place in flying the aircraft for the military incognito!!!
Ciao for now~
-
Wow - we will be repeating the opposite viewpoints as if that is something we should agree upon here in this discussion - I have a problem with an author having expectations, as many in life have expectations of how a job, that is not their job should be done - typically those finding fault are never perfect nor have they had the job they are Monday Morning quarterbacking about -
We are only reading this authors impression and there are many other authors who share other points of view - I see it one way and you see it another - that is fine but lets continue to share from our viewpoints rather than trying to convince each other to change our views as if there is only one view -
We know that NO ONE has any idea of what Roosevelt was thinking, planning or waiting for - author after author tells you it is just conjecture since there is no Oval Office tapes or personal diary explaining his why, what and wherefore -
So far I have found Lynne Olson's style to constantly create, not only an explosion of secret historical information but a drama she creates based on her opinion - so I find myself checking and rechecking with other authors and prefer not to give much credence to her opinions about those she never met and is writing about from researched hearsay.
But again, that is me - and again , we all have our viewpoint not only reading the book, our respect for the author, our memory of the times and our understanding of the times from other authors - all that is subjective. It is OK that you see Roosevelt primarily as a foot dragger - and there are sentences to support that viewpoint - I lean on other sentences and have a different point of view. And that I think is not only OK but why we discuss a book - so we can have other viewpoints that alone we would not conjure.
I would also consider who in the story is complaining about his dragging his feet - certainly not the isolationists and so I see the author is simply fanning a fire with those remarks - to others she may not - not sure of the action expected but then I was never in a national leadership role during war. OK lets us be OK - Peace...
-
BarbStAubrey, Please forgive me if I appeared to be trying to force anyone to change their views on anything. I can assure you it was never my intent. This book has seemed to reveal many things that indeed is from one author's opinion. I may have mistook her opinions for facts, only because I assumed she had material to substantiate them. I have nothing but high regard and respect for your postings and views. I admire that you are cross checking and bringing us other sources to draw from. I was not born in the years of FDR so I can not in any way have a personal opinion, or memory of Roosevelt's thoughts and actions back then, I am only conjecturing and surmising from this book. Each of us can respectfully agree to disagree, that is what makes for a good discussion. One view would be so boring....lolol I know I can be passionate when it comes to politics so again, please accept my apologies if I have ever offended or seemed to force one/my opinion on any one.
Ciao for now~
-
BarbStAubrey---from your last comment.....with all the diary quotes, repeatedly again and again...I was wondering about my impressions about FDR and his hesitation and back and forth on the question of helping a country in dire need; one that reflected the values of his country.....in the William Stephenson book I (mind you it was quite awhile ago I read it, and I was not around when this suspenseful time occurred ) was feeling FDR within his mind was behind the countries against Germany & was pulling for his country to be there with him....
a couple of chapters back in last weeks reading it was suggested that even with voting in congress, people may vote with their future in mind and not necessarily their beliefs and the vote reflected only 1 vote between 2 sides....(while a number of polled congressmen were found to have voted against what they in fact were for, due to election time coming up so it seems many more were in fact for aiding Britain but the vote was far from reflecting that fact ..............democracy not demonstrating one of its better sides...........
it would be interesting to have the set of books Sir Winston Churchill wrote about the second world war....I have book one 'The Gathering Storm' but it relates his time up to becoming Prime Minister of England.....further down the line would be the books discussing his impression of his time with FDR and what was said between the two; if in fact they were talking truths not trying to play with facts to better succeed where they wished the direction of each of their countries to follow
Deb
-
We got rather abruptly into the post Pearl Harbor discussion without much consideration of the rapid changes in American attitude covered in Chapters 22 and 23. This would have been during the summer and fall of 1941. One evidence of the rapidly change in American opinion mentioned by the Author was the new tone of American comic book literature with Nazi type characters invading Dog patch and Little Abner/Daisy Mae etc gallantly defending their turf. Other examples were also cited. Also the The US had already entered the shooting War in the North Atlantic since FDR in the Summer of 1940 had Authorized the Navy to Convey ships over the first 1/3 of the crossing to Britain'
In my view FDR was cautious but seemed to me quite ready to change as American public opinion changed. The unexpected switch complicated the problem with Churchill fearing the US would abandon its aid to Britain to concentrate on its Pacific war. That fear was erased before the end of the week by Hitler's mid week declaration of War against the United States despite the fact that his foreign minister and most of his advisers recommended against it. This untimely declaration followed by the the prompt weekend US declaration of War against Germany relived Churchill of his of his fear and in fact assured that the US and UK would put priority on defeating Germany.
-
Interesting Harold - Ella - who else here has living memory of Dec. 7, 1941 - I just do not remember all this navel-gazing that is described in the book - I know there were many more recent theories that FDR was complicit in setting a domino of tit for tat that would logically conclude with the Japanese attack and this author is debunking that theory -
At the time I remember our fear of the Japanese was palatable and everyone was looking at the bottom of every salt and pepper shaker and do dad on our shelves for a stamp 'Made in Japan' then smashing in the trash the items - I also think since we had visible in-color posters showing the horror of the Nanking attack and massacre we had in our minds eye the Japanese being a brutal unfeeling race. Where as part of the malaise over Hitler was the huge German American population in this nation - There were little to few immigrants from south of the border - the Irish and Italian families had not achieved the acceptance in our communities of the Germans and so it was more like trying to sort out what cousins to set aside within the family.
I just remember an almost immediate shot of energy - none of the malaise that accompanied 9/11 with average folks and professionals sifting through the damage - For most of the nation if not all, hearing the president say 'This day will live in infamy' was a rallying call that left navel-gazing by leaders as to how and who to blame for the spilt milk to historians.
-
Oh, we have a whole week of interesting incidents leading up to Pearl Harbor day. I am amused by Big Bill and Little Bill (Donovan and Stephenson) attempting to unseat Edgar J. Hoover. (Did anyone see the movie Hoover?) He was legendary; every young boy in my era played g-man.
All the spying back and forth between these enemies makes for wonderful books and movies and I've read many of them. I like spy stories, espionage and think of the thousands of books and movies this war inspired.
I know the Germans were attempting to build an atomic weapon systerm - was it at Peenmunde in Germany, a llittle village? And they certainly were ahead of us in rocketry - think of the rocket scientists we somehow got out of Germany to help with the space program.
1940 saw a country in confusion - a president does need the country behind him before he makes a decision that would inflict hardship on every citizen. As I said before, I admire FDR for his caution which I think is one kind of leadership (how I wish GWBush had been a bit more cautious before he got us in war with Middle East).
We had not been attacked, but the concept of democracy in the world was disappearing and we alone, with a weakened G.Britain, had the strength to hold down the fort. What to do? Could you decide?
Germany was not going to attack the USA. It has been argued forever and ever whether or not FDR knew of the Japanese intentions to attack.
Gotta run for now - off to the see the movie - THE BUTLER.
Someday perhaps we should discuss a book on the 1960's. Anyone know a good one?
-
If some of you youngsters do not know what G-men were click here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G-Man_(slang)
-
Ella and all: we don't hear the term "G-Man" much any more, but back in the 1940 it was commonly used to mean FBI agent. It stood for Government Man. I' remember my 1940 tour of the FBI headquarters that was confudted by an FBI agen that I am quite sure I would have identified the agent conducting the tour as a G Man.
-
Back 4 0r 5 days ago I remember someone asked "just who was our Hitler thanking in Chapter 25 that she entitled Chapter 25,"Der Fuhrer Thanks You For Your Loyalty." Actually Hitler never issued such a thank ..you statement . Actually this is reference to a 1940's incident at an America First Rally where Congressman Hamilton Fish was addressing the crowd with a fir-ere Isolationist speech When a person from the crowd handed the congressman a card reading "Der Fuhrer thanks you for your loyalty." The press had been alerted and the incidence was well publicized by the Interventionists.
Actually Though there is no recorded thank you, there were a few Americans who Hitler should have appreciated, There were others but the most German loyal of all was a naturalize American, George Sylvester Viereck, He served as Nazi Germany's Publicist in the US. For years he had advised the German Government on matters of American Public opinion and and on German Government's American policy. Viereck ended up spending years in Federal prison after conviction on disloyalty charges.
-
Somewhere in the house is a bullet-riddled, human torso-shaped target that the FBI agent presented to my son as a souvenir of the G-man's shooting skill. From there we went to the Smithsonian to see the Spirit of ST Louis.
How can anyone read this book without getting angry about something? I think Olson has made a great story of that stormy period before the actual war. As she has it in the subtitle, it was a battle over the war. And the main characters for her were Roosevelt and Lindbergh. It's obvious that she wasn't always sure how to feel about either one.
Two heroic characters. Both in way, reluctant warriors. Lindbergh ended by flying missions in the Pacific. Perhaps Roosevelt could have done more to prevent the war. As it turned out, in my view, Lindbergh was crucified, and Roosevelt might have been impeached for allowing foreign agents and fifth columnists, and comic strip artists to sway the mood of the country.
-
'I have seen the science I worshiped and the aircraft I loved destroying the civilization I expected them to serve.'Charles Lindbergh, p454
-
'Fame makes it very cumbersome to live one's life. Anne Morrow Lindbergh, p 457
-
I am one of those people who were "there" , as I am 88..Of course I was only 14 in 1939, and then as now 14 year olds have much more important things to think about, than war, for goodness sake!..
Mostly the book has given me a much closer look,at the times and people, that I had, even as an "adult".
I was living in Washington DC, married, and with a brand new little girl, when peace arrived..And we were there when FDR died..I had nothing but the most respect, for that President..I was not innocent enough to believe that he could only be right, but I did believe that he was a remarkable president, who had pulled the country out of a crushing depression,. and who had used his "power" to make us believe we really were the best country in the world..
I have surprised myself, while reading this book, by how much I really didn't know..Not just at the time, but through the years..Of course I have read other books that more or less touched on all of the topics this one had covered, (and of course I have also gone to other sources to try and check on certain points)but I guess they just didn't make me think as much as this one has..
So thank you all..I am so very glad that I have found this site..( I was a member of SeniorNet.org for many years, and have a WebWandering tee shirt to prove it)
-
So glad you joined us Putney - quite a read isn't it. I came in here having finally finished the entire book and thinking up to the last few pages the after thought was redundant - I didn't really care what became of those involved in this pre war battle of ideas - and then... Holy Hannah I did not see that coming - was there a newsflash 10 years ago that I missed - oh oh oh - what a sorting out for Reeve, Land, Scott and Jon - I see from the online web site that he died alone in Hawaii at age 72 having lived there alone for several years so it appears Anne was living a separate life in Vermont.
Both Roosevelt and Lindbergh thoroughly populated the earth didn't they - both has strong supportive wives filled with wisdom that they cast aside however, I wonder what Roosevelt would have said or thought if he was told of Lindbergh's secret life.
As someone else mentioned in an earlier post, I am glad his expertise was used during WWII and he was re-instated with his commission and rank.
Olson sure had the issue of Jews in America right - it appears that it was all right and expected as long as you did not publicize saying out-loud what was truth.
What we forget is that the Japanese were creating their own holocaust through out Asia - the difference, there were no ovens - but most say during the 1930s through WWII the Japanese killed 10,000,000 people, which included almost 6,000,000 Chinese, Indonesians, Koreans, Filipinos, and Indochinese - and then civilian Westerners, Pacific Islanders and those killed in combat.
For the last 15 years or so I have helped over 36 families from Indonesia buy their homes and a few of the older clients had tales - how they hid in the forest living off roots and berries so they or their daughters would not be raped and killed. One client, the wife was a 'Joy' girl for the Japanese along with her mother, who after the war arranged with a soldier from Texas to marry and bring to America the daughter and the child that resulted from her daughter's war experience. No love - big age difference - but they both stood by each other till his death about 10 years ago.
-
I think it really amazing how quickly the United States military transformed from a confused, poorly organized armed service in 1940 to an army/navy/air force capable of fighting offensive war in both the Pacific and Atlantic oceans. During 1941 Lynne Olson paints a dismal picture of morale of the US army. The new draftees were miserable making 30 a month while in civilians working in defense plants were making several hundred. The situation became worse in 1942 when that year legislation extended their term as it turned out indefinitely.
Yet once the war began, already in the spring of 1942 Navy carriers successfully blocked Japanese offensive action aimed at Australia in a carrier battle in the Coral Sea. This action was followed in the summer of 1942 by the battle of Midway, another most decisive carrier battle that was the last real Japanese offensive thrust. Thereafter the pacific war was successive US island hopping operations expected to cumulate at the Japanese home islands. Meanwhile In the Atlantic US army was being built up in England and by November 1942 the first offensive US/UK action was launched in French North Africa.
-
PUTNEY! WELCOME TO OUR SITE. STAY WITH US! IF YOU HAVE A BOOK YOU WOULD LIKE US TO DISCUSS LET US KNOW. SO GLAD YOU POSTED! I was eleven years old in 1939, but certainly do remember the war years even though I was in high school. I married a veteran of WWII later.
Harold, who lives in Texas, and myself, who live in Ohio, have never met but we both enjoy nonfiction and discussing it with others. So we hope all are enjoying it.
Truman is quoted on page 348 - "If we see that Germany is winning, we ought to help Russia, and if Russia is winning, we ought to help Germany, and that way let them kill as many as possible."
Practial Harry!
But Russia was our ally, helping us win the war against Germany, we gave aid to Russia. Hitler had forgotten what happened to Napoleon's amies when they attempted to invade Russia:
"Napoleon Bonaparte is generally regarded as one of history’s top military tacticians. But 200 years ago he committed a grave error by leading his Grande Armée—likely the largest European armed force ever assembled to that point—across the Niemen River into Russia. Although it never lost a pitched battle there, the Grande Armée was almost completely wiped out within six months by freezing temperatures, food shortages, disease and Russian assaults. This proved to be the beginning of the end for Napoleon, who was forced into exile in April 1814."
Military historians would have remembered.
-
HAROLD mentioned how poorly organized the country was in 1940 but it wasn't much better in 1941: "....the year will go down in history as the year we almost lost the war before we finally got into it." I am somewhat surprised, Harold, that you didn't mention Sam Rayburn, the famous speaker of the House from Texas, for years and years. We could probably do a bio of him someday.
But in July of that year FDR again was able to persuade the country of the danger to the country and called for action - and the public responded. (p.354) That's leadership.
As BARBARA stated the country did use Lindbergh's expertise in aviation; how foolish it would have been to ignore the man.
You would have to have been at the movies, as Harold, Putnery, Jonathan and I were during this period, to remember and appreciate the propaganda in the movies. I had no idea that the MARCH OF TIME was a powerful tool "creating staged dramatizations to its narration and documentary footage.....biased and inflammatory."
Do we recognize the news that we see on TV daily as "powerful tools" to stimulate our beliefs, biased and inflammatory?
I love the quote from Anne Lindbergh, JONATHAN. Cumbersome to be famous; there are many other words we could put in place of the word "cumbersome."
-
I just have to ask a question of all of you. How many of you are fans of TCM? Have you seen any of the movies mentioned in Chapter 23?
-
Ella, I saw the movie The Butler a few days after it opened in the theaters. After seeing it, I heard on the news how some groups were boycotting it because Jane Fonda played Nancy Reagan, and while doing interviews she wore a tee shirt of herself dressed in Hanoi garb. They said, isn't it time we forgive and forget, since she apologized for her treasonous acts during the Veit Nam war? But, then they asked was she really sorry, if she could now come out wearing that tee shirt on purpose, to make a statement while being interviewed. Then a few days later, I saw a post on Facebook where Michael Reagan has spoken out and is furious the movie portrayed his father Ronald as a racist. He said the line in the movie about the racial issue, his father would never have said. So it seems even today producers and actors/actresses are using the movie industry to promote their political agendas to reach the American people.
Welcome Putney, it is nice to have yet one more person who was there in the time of World War 11 and can share some insight from your childhood/young adult memories. I too can say this book has shed much light on events from 1939 - 1941 I had no idea of. I was not much of a history buff in school, but seniorlearn has been a great way for me to not only get a chance to learn about history, but enjoy it through the discussions as I learn.
So, our last pages show Lindbergh led a double life. Indeed, what would Roosevelt felt about this, had he known? It would probably give Roosevelt more assurance he was a man who could not be trusted. Double life/ double agent, is what I think Lindbergh's opposers would assess. I liked Lindbergh throughout the book and was very saddened to read about his affairs and his children finding out they had siblings all over the world. Ann I'm sure was not so naive to think while he was gone for months and months he was just traveling for fun. Their marriage became a marriage of convenience which is not an uncommon thing. I still felt sad to learn this.
Okay gotta run....Ciao for now~
-
Welcome to the discussion, Putney. Like you I'm surprised by how much I have learned in this book, and the posts from all of you. I can appreciate your feeling about FDR:
'he was a remarkable president, who had pulled the country out of a crushing depression,. and who had used his "power" to make us believe we really were the best country in the world..'
And as a second act, he pulled the world out of the cataclysmic disorder it had fallen into. In my subsidiary reading in this discussion I came across a bit of new information. FDR made a speech in Kingston, Ontario, in 1936. No doubt at the Royal Military College there. In it he pledged U.S. help if Canada should ever be threatened by an aggressor. I never knew that. Would that be U.S. policy in perpetuity? Like the Monroe Doctrine.
Just want you to know that Canada thinks of you as the best neighbor in the world. Y'all come to see us sometime.
Some thing else I have learned. I have made many trips to the Adirondacks in New York. My way always took me past Kingston, then across the St Lawrence into the U.S.A. and past Fort Drum near Watertown. Our book mentions General Hugh Drum, commander of the U.S. First Army. Would the Fort have been named after him in recognition of services rendered? How often I have stopped at the coffee shop near the base and found myself surrounded by young soldiers preparing to go on missions around the world.
-
Don't feel sad, Bellamarie. The president did not die in Eleanor's arms. Was she sorry? We will never know.
-
Please read this link - we keep talking as if WWII was an event of its own and it was Hitler's messed up life or view of the world that made him do what he did -
This article helps us understand he was simply doing what his idol did in the nineteenth century, which he believed would regain German self respect followed by the respect of Europe if Germany again became what Kaiser Wilhelm created in Europe when the Kaiser created the 2nd Reich - with this knowledge it is easy to understand why Lindbergh saw the conflict as a European squabble.
http://ibatpv.org/projects/germany/2ndreich/index.html
-
Before I read "Those Angry Days", I had read "Against Wind and Tide", a memoir from Anne Morrow Lindbergh's journals, diaries and correspondence about the years 1947-1986. I had also read "The Aviator's Wife", a fictionalized story of AML and her life with Charles.
From these two books - one the author's viewpoint based on her research and the other a non-fiction based on private writing of AML, there is no way I can put Charles Lindbergh on a pedestal - no matter how much he may have helped the aeronautical field.
He was an egotistical, self-serving man who used his fame to say what he thought when he wanted to say it and do what he wanted when he wanted to do it - and cared not a fig for the effect his statements or actions had on those around him. I can well understand why so many had suspicions about him during the pre WWII years.
There are other AML memoirs from the years 1922 - 1932 but I have been unable to find one based on the WWII years.
-
The Book Club Online is the oldest book club on the Internet, begun in 1996, open to everyone. We offer cordial discussions of one book a month, 24/7 and enjoy the company of readers from all over the world. Everyone is welcome.
August Book Club Online
THOSE ANGRY DAYS by Lynne Olson
Roosevelt, Lindbergh, and America’s Fight Over World War II, 1939-1941
| (http://www.seniorlearn.org/bookclubs/angrydays/angrydayscover.jpg) |
".............the definitive account of the debate over American intervention in World War II—a bitter, sometimes violent clash of personalities and ideas that divided the nation and ultimately determined the fate of the free world. - The New York Times
“In Those Angry Days, journalist-turned-historian Lynne Olson captures [the] period in a fast-moving, highly readable narrative punctuated by high drama. It’s . . . popular history at its most riveting, detailing what the author rightfully characterizes as ‘a brutal, no-holds-barred battle for the soul of the nation.’ It is sure to captivate readers seeking a deeper understanding of how public opinion gradually shifted as America moved from bystander to combatant in the war to preserve democracy.”—Associated Press |
| DISCUSSION SCHEDULE: |
| August 1-7 | Chapters 1-7 |
| August 8-14 | Chapters 8-14 |
| August 15-21 | Chapters 15-21 |
| August 22-28 | Chapters 22-28 |
Discussion Leaders: Ella (egibbons28@columbus.rr.com) & Harold (hhullar5@yahoo.com)
-
I do not hear these stories now but when I was a kid in a German household we heard these stories as the example of who we are as a people - and so where the world my look at Napoleon as the example of why you do not invade Russia by land I bet Hitler was coming from his ancient Teutonic roots that he put on display during those large theatrical gatherings that were a performance to bring German pride to the forefront reminding Germans of their ancient history.
The story goes - during Roman times Rome thought Germans were the bravest people in the world and yet, in one battle the Roman Marius destroyed his German enemy. The battlefield ran with human blood and the deluge of slain Germans became the fertilizer that feeds the best wines of Italy.
The Germans drew up into several solid squares measuring over 5 kilometers each and fastened themselves together with chains so the enemy could not break through. Even the dogs used to guard ammunition attacked ferociously. When all was about lost the remaining Germans killed their women and children rather than see them fall to the Romans. This courage was the tale that caused terror and foreboding through European history and is the story that sustains German tradition that goes with a saying - 'Germans are born free under their ancient oaks, never will we be slaves though the whole world is against us. Death rather than the loss of our liberty.'
Through out German history is the belief that to kill the roots of the ancient oak and chop off its limbs Germany becomes a geographical designation until, someone else comes along and waters the roots, often with blood with the idea the Fatherland should, under God be free and united sustained by the ancient Teutonic brotherhood. Nothing in the myth about making Jews the scapegoat - that horror appears to be a phenomenon that hopefully had its day. Although, visiting parts of Europe you have to wonder.
In the book it was interesting to read how some realized the real culprit who wanted world domination in his hip pocket was Stalin. Where as using this old cultural myth I can see Hitler wanted his sold squares and to include in his squares the lands where Germans lived. I think once he went to war with America that forced him into a different goal - which makes me think that was his hesitation to declare War - that to me would be interesting to learn - more about those days just before he declared war that made him believe it was his move to make.
-
PUTNEY: WELCOME BACK! Do tell us about the early years of Seniornet.
I was a teenager in Washington DC when peace was declared. Do you still live there?
-
CallieinOK, "He was an egotistical, self-serving man who used his fame to say what he thought when he wanted to say it and do what he wanted when he wanted to do it - and cared not a fig for the effect his statements or actions had on those around him."
This just about describes every politician who holds, has held, or aspires to hold any office, including the Presidency. This book sure did open my eyes to how this type of character in politicians, famous people, celebrities etc. is seeming the norm.
Jonathon, I have been told I live in a bubble due to me being so naive, hopeful to see the best in people, and being a hopeless romantic. I must say.......I like my bubble. LOLOL :) But I do set myself up for disappointment and sadness when reality sets in. :P
-
Yes, Bellemaria that is why I question how we raise our children - we teach them and measure ourselves by our better nature so that when kids hit the real world they are as shocked as we are that many, long ago left their better nature on some doorstep -
The problem, we are not equipped to read the signs and often do not know how to protect ourselves when we do realize what is happening, just as we do not know how to measure the integrity of others. We assume they are coming from the same place we are - lots of damage that I see as unnecessary if we were taught early on that evil exists and it is not in the form of a pitch fork holding miniature man dressed in red whispering in our ear but rather, someone who bullies, mis-using authority, status and panache.
As to differences in viewpoint I can buy that - it is the petty behavior that grown people adapt and inflict on those with whom they disagree therefore, they make them into an enemy. Then god forbid one wins the match-up and we must suffer through their interpretation of not only what happened but their description of those holding another viewpoint. Reminds me of being a kid and taking sides in the schoolyard based on what the winner says about the loser. You do not dare line up with the loser or you may be the next victim and if you simply stay out of it no one likes you and you are picked on from both sides.
-
BarbStAubrey, Your post is so very true, and said so eloquently. I am of Italian descent, so our passion sometimes can be misinterpreted by those who are not familiar to our over zealous personalities. Being a teacher for over 30 yrs I welcome and enjoy many viewpoints. Your analogy of the bully is so true. Not only when we hit the real world are we shocked, I am shocked within my own family. We have fire alarms, tornado sirens and storm watch alerts to protect us....too bad we don't come equipped with a warning signal to help us to as you say, "measure the integrity of others." I teach religion classes, I attend Bible studies, I go to Mass, read spiritual books, and participate in my Christian community and still......BAM that little red man with the pitchfork still shows up. LOLOL I know its a part of human nature, and so I go on about my day and do the best I can. Ciao for now my Pizan!
-
This morning it sees that I have lost my Book. Yes my digital copy of "Those Angry Days" has disappeared from my Nook, I-Pad and other devices. I'll have to call B&N, but I"ll go ahead and post on a point that strikes me as strange goings on in the War Dept. at the Highest command levels in the fall of 1941.
General Marshal in the fall of 1942 seeing the likelihood that the US would soon be in the War with Germany, had assigned the task of preparation of a comprehensive War Plan for joint operations with Britain for defeating Nazi Germany. I don't now have the Major's name, but I think I recognized it as a WWII General who by the end of the war held a high command in Asia. It was indeed a very comprehensive plan that envisioned a joint US/UK return to continental Europe in 1943. Amazingly a copy of this top secret plan showed up in the hands of a leading Isolationist Senator. Though I don’t remember this event, the existence of such a plan certainly caught the attention of the Isolationist Press and the highest levels of the Government including the President, the Secretary of war and General Marshal.
A comprehensive War department investigation was order to determine how and who leaked the document to the Senator. Before the investigation was complete the Japanese bombing of Pearl Harbor and Hitler’s responded with the declaration of war on the US had reduced the impact of the results, but as I remember the result was that it was General H.H. Arnold the commanding general of the Air Force who had leaked the document. Arnold had been in the 1930’s one of the officers more friendly with German Contacts. At that point any guilt reflecting on Arnold was forgotten, and so far as I know has never been recorded before it was published in this book.
Also I am no relation to the General. He descends from English Arnolds, I from an 1850’s German immigrant to Indiana. Yet during the war when I was in the Navy at every station, my section officer, usually an Ensign or Ltjg would ask, "er—er, Are you related to General Arnold.” I was tempted but never actually said what I was thinking, OH, yes-You mean Uncle Hap”
-
The report...'if accurate, also showed the president of the United States to be a liar.' p 412
Harold, the book says it was Major Albert Wedemeyer, 'one of the most isolationist officers in the Army', who directed the military plan study. Strange consequences followed from this leak to the press. Some think it was the deciding factor which led Hitler to declare war on the U.S. But Japan preempted him at Pearl Harbor.
-
Thanks, Barb, for the link to a bit of German history. It was a time of nation-building in Europe. That's usually accompanied by a lot of violence. And when Wilhelm II had his realm, he got dreams of empire, like his cousin on the British throne.
Here's a curious quote from our book, on page 436:
'The news of the Holocaust exposed, once and for all, the speciousness of Lindbergh's argument that the war was a clash of rival imperialistic states, with both sides undeserving of U.S. support.'
We've been told Lindbergh was a fascist, but this argument of his makes him out as a marxist. One thing that impresses me about this book is how sucessfylly the author has surfed the quicksands of anti-Semitism. All the rest of the isolationists went on with their lives. Lindbergh's isolationism killed him. I can understand why the Brits and the Jews wanted him discredited, they were fighting for their lives, but the president seemed only afraid of facing him in an election, or at least was warned about it.
-
Hello Uncle Hap. Hope you get your book back. We have the week to finish our discussion of the book
JONATHAN, thanks for the invitation to Canada, I've been there several times. How difficult is it to cross the border these days? LYears ago, I don't believe we needed a passport; the first time we went to Niagara Falls and around there, we crossed the border somewhere and showed no papers at all - not a border patrol anywhere.
Chapter 23 certainly knocks Lindbergh off any pedestal he once had. What in the world made the man continue those speeches - the newspapers were all castigating him for his views, his anti-semistism. He paid no attention!! If I had been Anne I would have taken the children to Mother's house and stayed until the guy apologized.
I don't know- what was the author's purpose of including Lindbergh in the title of this book?
-
Well, I've got my book back. It seems that I accidentally deleted in last night. I had been reading it in bed with the lights out.. I shut it down in the dark about 11:30. I have no idea how the delete happened. The B&N technician told me they could restore the Book, but it would be without my notes and highlights. But by golly those notes and highlights are back too.
Lindbergh had Immediately after the Pearl Harbor attack asked Roosevelt to reinstate him for active Air Force duty. Despite a favorable recommendation by Hap Arnold, Roosevelt turned him down. At that point it looked like Lindbergh was destined to spend the war as a civilian, but it was not to stand. Again though he remained a persona non grata with the Roosevelt Administration his Air Force friends hired him as a civilian to test pilot Fighter Planes in the South Pacific. Because of the apparent independence of the war Department Generals, Lindbergh was transported by the Air Force to a South Pacific base where he participated in uniform as a fighter pilot in combat. Lynne Olson says he even shot down one Japanese Zero, and on another occasion he almost got shot down himself. Lynne OLson also notes that one change Lindbergh suggested in the P.-38 Fighter resulted in a 500 mile increase in its operational range. In any case Lindbergh did serve in active combat duty in the Pacific.
-
THE YANKS ARE COMING, EVEN JOE PALOOKA
(http://static.comicvine.com/uploads/scale_small/0/3125/2230573-jp1.jpg)
-
Fun, to see those old comics isn't it? Newspapers around the country were backing the Roosevelt administration, blackouts were practiced, wardens being appointed (I vaguely remember this). I think there are still a few places where the metal yellow/black sign - Shelter - can be seen. Have you seen any?
It was very interesting to me that there was a base in Portland, Maine, a key base for the U.S. Atlantic Fleet. My sister married a veteran and they moved there shortly after the war, I visited there several times; I must look up where the base was situated. I know a bit about Portland's history but I would like to know more.
"During the Atlantic Conference, Roosevelt had told Churchill he planned to 'look for an incident which would justify him in opening hostilities.'"
In a way you can understand this statement, FDR believeed strongly that we needed to get in the war; still it is difficult to read that a president wanted this, isn't it? A death, an explosion, something!
What incidents have we encountered to justify the wars in Vietnam, Korea, the Gulf, Afghanistan?
-
I'm seeing this Syria thing bringing us to a similar place as in the late 30s when most folks wanted war like a hole in the head and many thought the ocean was our safe guard and barrier - I think we now see two sides of the ancient Islamic war being played out and we do not want to get pulled in now that we understand as compared to our being pulled into Iraq without our understanding. It will be interesting to see if we have another major conflict or if it becomes a UN action like Bosnia.
-
Glad you got your book back...and your notes too, Harold! I thought it was going to be a happy ending for Lindbergh at the end of the war securing his place in history . I'm wondering if the revelations concerning his personal life have changed anyone's assessment of the man and his character, his achievements?
-
The media showed strong support for sending the "boys" into WWII after Pearl Harbor! Even the comic books the little kids were reading, like Joe Palooka. I recognized all of the movie stars Lynne O. mentioned. I watched Jimmy Stewart in Frank Capra's "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington" the other night. The film came out in 1939, portraying the Isolationist, Burton Wheeler as an admirable, independent, highly principled Senator from Montana. The film industry quickly reversed its stand in 1941...Pearl Harbor changed everything.
I have a hard time reading about " the Pearl Harbor incident" as if it was just a bunch of ships that went down, a military maneuver we should have been prepared for. I would imagine that it was the loss of life, over a thousand sailors trapped forever in their watery grave, that sent our young men in droves to enlist- some even lied about their ages to get in. I missed the real passion, the emotional impact of the "incident" in Lynne Olson's account.
What incidents have we encountered to justify the wars in Vietnam, Korea, the Gulf, Afghanistan?
A good question, Ella. Of course, Afghanistan was a response to the horrible 9-11 attack on the World Trade Center. No question about going over the perps!
Was there a specific incident that brought the US into Vietnam? Or was it the gradual increase of our involvement there.
I think you're right, Barb - the mood of the country - and the administration is Not inclined to enter into direct conflict with Syria...unless of course, and God forbid, there is an "incident" such as Pearl Harbor...
-
Afghanistan was a response to the horrible 9-11 attack
??!!??
Looks like I will be cutting my participation short - this has been one of the best discussions - learned a lot and explored much which is always fun - last night I fell asleep reading on the sofa and woke up with a start to get to bed - Groggy, my foot hit the table leg and broke two toes - hanging onto furniture and walls to get in here and not even able to easily get my laptop up and running so I am taking an aspirin and back to that sofa for the next few days. I'll try to make it back and post the end of the week but just in case as Bellamarie says - Ciao
-
Really? You broke two of your ten toes? That's awful, Barbara. I hope you've seen a doctor? I'm so sorry! We will miss you.
ps Afghanistan was a response to the horrible 9-11 attack
"??!!??"
I'm puzzled at your question/exclamation marks. Didn't we respond to the terrorist attack on 9-11 and go in there after Osama? I know you can't answer for a few days, but maybe someone can correct me if I'm wrong...
-
Barbara, I hope you are right!
"I think we now see two sides of the ancient Islamic war being played out "
But I doubt it. We could have seen all of this before we started - do you remember Schwarzkopt from the Iraq War? I read about him at the time as he wrote me a letter (no doubt, his secretary, but it has his signature on it) - he and his family had lived in the MIddle East, perhaps it was Iraq and he knew the ancient strife there. And there were others who could have testified regarding the Middle East, their culture, their religion, their Koran, their beliefs, etc.
We don't listen too well.
Imagine my surprise when I read this headline in our paper this morning.
BLAME FDR; HE MADE BIG GOVERNMENT LOOK EASY.
"As his best and generally admiring biographer Conrad Black notes, he was devious, largely ignorant of economics, cruel to subordinates, vacillating on many issues. But he had a great gift for picking the right person for the right job- if he thought the job was important. For the unimportant jobs-well, anyone politically useful would do...........Roosevelt's knack for picking the right man or right woman is the central theme of Eric Larrabee's wonderful 1987 book COMMANDER IN CHIEF. Larrabee shows how FDR selected the unflappable George Marshall to organize a vastly expanded Army, ...Ernest King to lead an aggressive Navy, the grandiloquent Doublas MacArthur to dramatize the side conflict in the South Pacific and Dwight Eisenhower to hold it all together. No other president has made such excellent military appointments right off the bat.
The article goes on to laud Harry Hopkins. Mentions Harold Ickes, Joseph Kennedy to set up the Securisties and Exchange Commission, Mariner Eccles to run the Federal REservice
"FDR's knack for choosing the right person for important jobs resulted from some unknowable combination of knowledge and intuition. It also showed an overriding concern for getting results."
I like that - I've always admired FDR. He was human with all his faults, but he came through for America time and time again.
Thanks, JOANP, for the post. I am going to re-read the last few chapters in the book to get an opinion as to Olson'a views; I would certainly hope she would place the Pearl Harbor incident as a horrible Japanese maneuver and the worst ever attack on US soil. It was a terrible loss of lives.
-
Two broken toes!! Ouch. I can feel the pain, Barbara.
Interesting, Ella, that you should be reading about Conrad Black's biography of FDR. Black was a very successful financial tycoon, with a lot of business smarts, and a publisher of a string of newspapers, but his avocation seems to be history. His wealth allowed him to acquire a huge amount of Roosevelt papers which he studied and put to use in writing the book on Roosevelt. His most recent biography is on Richard Nixon, whom he also admires.
Sure, a good leader picks good subordinates to carry out his policies. And that makes the first paragraph in the book so interesting:
'On a soft April morning in 1939, Charles Lindenbergh was summoned to the White House to meet President Franklin D. Roosevelt, arguably the only person in America who equaled him in fame....During his thirty-minute chat with Lindbergh, he gave no sign of the many grave problems weighing on his mind....He was, in fact, in the midst of one of the greatest crises of his presidency.'
Can we doubt that the president was looking him over to see if he could make use of Lindbergh? To make these two the big contestants of her book was a stroke of genius on Olson's part.
-
I'm mistaken. Black's most recent book is about his wrangle with U.S. law courts. I believe the title is A Matter of Principle.
-
For anyone interestd in Charles Lindbergh's Des Moines speech, in September, 1941:
http://www.charleslindbergh.com/americanfirst/speech.asp
These may have been the only truthful words spoken during that campaign to get the U.S. into the war. He gave it his honest best.
-
Interesting how we are finishing up this book, which I feel has been not much different than today in politics and here we are hearing of entering Syria. Should Obama have drawn that red line? Should he have moved the line a few times? Now that he has information Syria has used chemicals on their own people has it backed Obama into a corner? They hope to go in quickly and bomb their airfields and get out quickly. Is that even sensible when you have Russia and China threatening to get involved if we take action? Again, here we go with polls showing a large per cent against our getting involved, and reports the polls are not accurate. Is this our present day Those Angry Days?
I just heard on the news, "The only fear we have to fear, is fear itself." FDR quote on the day Obama is deciding "when" NOT "if" we strike Syria. Now that is pretty unbelievable! I saw a headline "Could this be WW111?" I pray not!
Here are a few links/articles covering it today:
RUSSIA, CHINA WARN AGAINST STRIKE...
OBAMA'S WAR...
BUCHANAN: Congress should veto...
Strike within days...
Warplanes begin arriving in Cyprus...
Armed forces 'making contingency plans' for military action...
CAMERON RECALLS PARLIAMENT...
HOLLANDE: France ready to 'punish' Syria...
NKOREA caught trying to send gas masks, weapons to Syria...
STOCKS JOLTED...
Russia evacuates 90 people ...
Says West Acting Like 'Monkey With Hand Grenade'...
Top Syrian Official: Obama 'Completely Wrong'; 'Produce The Evidence'...
These headlines and more, right now at Drudge online: http://drudgereport.com/
**Keep up to the minute, join us at: Conservative Patriots of America -- on facebook @: https://www.facebook.com/ConservativePatriotsofAmerica
and also at: Patriots of America -- on Twitter @:
https://twitter.com/1776Patriot007
BarbStAubrey, I am so very sorry to hear about your broken toes. I pray they heal quickly, and you are not in too much discomfort. I hope you make it back in with your laptop. I always look forward to your posts and insight.
Ciao for now~
-
Barbara I was sorry to hear of your at home accident side tracking you with two broken toes. Broken toes sure do hurt but they do have a way of healing. I 'll bet you'll be back here discussing another book in no time.
Regarding the Roosevelt's administration's responsibility for our current staggering National dept crisis; I think the last year of the Hoover Administration began an increasing annual deficit that accelerated during the New Deal years of the 1st and 2nd administrations followed by much larger deficits during the the WWII years. Unfortunately with the exception of a few years large annual deficits have continued. I suspect that the great splurge from 1960 to the present is more the responsibility of the Congress, particularly the House of Representatives who during the next 50 years spiraled the national budget with the federal financing of local and State infrastructure improvement projects. Also of course there was the cold war that intensified in the 1960's and the crisis resulting from the 9-11-2001 attack that has required a continuing wartime status until the present time.
The above are just a few comments on how this now apparently staggering national dept came into existence. It certainly says nothing about what we can do about it, or what further economic result miight follow.
-
Was watching Bill O'Reiley tonight and he was talking about Obama's indecisiveness about what to do with Syria and how if he has definite proof chemicals were used, we must do something for the humanitarian purpose. He just compared today with 1940 and FDR's indecisiveness before entering WW11. We here at Seniorlearn.org are a fortunate group to have just read this book and are up to snuff on 1939 - 1941, considering what is happening today. I wouldn't be understanding much of what he said if it weren't for reading "Those Angry Days"...... Kudos for us!!!
-
There is still so much to learn in the last chapters of the book - HAVE YOU ALL FINISHED IT??? NOTHING MORE TO SAY???
Bell - thanks for your posts, but I don't think we want to get into present day politics, as much as we would like to, the book still holds our interest.
New facts for me: -
Japan was determined to expand their empire. I knew they had been fighting China but was too young at the time to pay much attention, but after this, one wonders at their ability to attack the USA:
"The so-called "Rape of Nanking" has gone into the annals of history as one of the most shocking incidents in modern history. Its senior officers allowed the Japanese army to ransack Nanking murdering tens of thousands as they went. The final death toll for Nanjing has been put as high as 250,000. The Guomintang leader, Chiang, had to establish a new capital in Chongqing.
The onslaught of the Japanese was relentless. Within 5 months, 1 million Chinese people were under Japanese control. All of the major cities in China were captured by the Japanese by the end of 1937 – so were the major communication systems of the nation.
And I learned more about our embargo and our lendlease program to help China.
"War with Japan......(by the USA) was seen as a tidier conflict, likely to be confined to the seas, and one that the U.S.Navy would easily win." Really??????
But then further, I read about the Victory Program - "one of the most remarkable documents of American history, for it set down the basic strategy of the global war before this country was involved in it.
The secret document was leaked - the public had a right to know - punishment was considered
How many "leakages" of secret documents do you remember, ones that made headlines?
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YoW2WYdOsvg&list=PL8ED432F849E116A4
History of the rape of Nanking. I watched one of the films, did not continue.
Japanese children were taught to hate the Chinese, to die for the Emporer was an honor, Japan had plan to rule the world -----
What did you learn from the film you did not know??
I do remember the names of Hirohita and Chiang Kai Shek though, from the war and articles I have read. How about you?
-
I need to return my library book, welcome my new day care kids, and return to teaching CCD, as my grandkids return back to school. So ending this book/discussion has come at a perfect time.
I really enjoyed the book after Olsen got past the few chapters of name dropping, and got into more of the interesting facts leading up to the war. Not sure Lindbergh played an important enough role in the book to credit his name in the title. For me, it seems the group, First America was more the reason for FDR's anger, not one person alone. I did enjoy learning about Lindbergh and Ann. After reading this book, I come away with an image of FDR as an indecisive president, who needed confirmation from the polls before he could act on anything. He seemed to have the people behind him more than he realized, unless the polls the author quoted were indeed altered to appease FDR. We will never know the truth of this one way or the other. One of the one lines that sticks with me is, "How did we get caught with our pants down?" Japan surprised everyone, while Russia and Germany were distracting and drawing FDR's attention.
Thank you to all of you who participated in this discussion, your posts, knowledge, insight, memories and opinions were very enlightening to me. I found myself thinking about things you posted as I went about my day. One thing I will take away from this book is that we must always remember the information the author used, was relied upon those who left diaries, notes, or one on one interviews, which are very helpful, but coming from one person's viewpoint. Another person present at the time, could have an entirely different view of the events and personalities of the people involved, depending on their own personal agendas and party allegiances. With all that being said, I did enjoy the book very much! Thank you Ella and Harold, once again the two of you led a great discussion!
Let us all pray for peace in the world today.
Until the next discussion......Ciao for now~
-
What did you learn from the film you did not know??
Oh Ella! I had to turn it off - watched up to Part 2 - when the Japanese soldiers poured gasoline on the Chinese civilians, children too and then fired on them - the bullets catching fire. As these soldiers watched the bodies quivver and burn - they laughed hysterically.
I learned that human beings are not really what I think of as "human".... Why was I so surprised - and heartsick watching this? Would you say the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were more merciful? The pilots of the plane saw only smoke - didn't have to watch people die. I'm certainly conflicted about all of this.
Why were the Japanese set on conquering and murdering their nearest neighbor? THe narrator of the film makes it clear that this was part of a systematic plan - China was the first stop, they planned to continue after China - until they conquered the world. Europe was on the list of targets. I wonder if Hitler was aware of the plan. These two Axis countries each have the same plan - to rule world. Mind- boggling to think what might have happened! I also wonder how much reporting reached the West - about the slaughter going on in China? Did the administration know? Do you think our parents knew?
-
Before returning to the "Aftermath" chapters, I'd like to put in a plug for the next Book Club Online discussion - Pearl Buck's The Good Earth (http://seniorlearn.org/forum/index.php?board=166.0) (this is a link to the discussion.) - beginning on Sept.2 I hope to see you - and everyone here in that discussion, Bellamarie.
I was interested to see the relationship between Nanking and Shanghai in the film Ella posted. Pearl Buck spent her young years in the capital city of Nanking and then was sent to boarding school in Shanghai in 1907. She had written The Good Earth in 1930 in Nanking. I worried about her - and her family, when the Japanese began bombing Nanking in 1937...and China was recruiting the young boys 12-13 years old into the army to defend the city from the Japanese.
But she and her family had returned to America in 1934 - to escape the threatening atmosphere for foreigners in China, a result of the struggle between the Nationalists and the Communists. She would never return to China.
-
Regarding our book, what is your concluding opinion of it as a discussion topic? During its reading there were times when I seemed all but over whelmed by the mass of detail included. There were times when I wondered if all of it was really necessary. I have never before digitally highlighted and noted so many pages from the beginning to the end.
By the way this is not the first time this group has been exposed to a Lynne Olson book. Some of you may remember our discussion of the "Angry Young Men" four or five years ago? The subject there centered on 1940 and the group of angry young men who bough Winston Churchill to power.
-
Strategically placed chairs and I am able to get in here to get online again - Today I can actually stand without crumbling - it is just the walking that is accompanied by my lips saying ow ow ow -
Hope Bellamarie peeks in again because she needs to know how much her posts added to my enjoyment of this conversation. It is for me one of our best.
Yes Harold, during this read I did get on my kindle her other two books - almost finished with both of them - interesting they are all about the same period.
As I kid I remember being traumatized by a poster showing the Japanese attacking the Chinese - remember no TV to immunize horror - had not seen a movie yet although it was later that summer I did see my first movie - it was the summer of '38 and I stood in front of that poster shocked, bewildered and frozen to the spot so that even my mother calling me to catch up I could not move - she had to come and get me and putting her hand on my shoulder said something about it being far away.
I can still see that poster in my minds eye - soldiers with those wrappings around their legs using what I later learned were bayonets into people - huge flashes of explosions with Chinese people fleeing with a look of drop dead fear - some carrying their babies - the poster was located on a pole at the entry where the Boy Scouts were staying in what to me was a city of tents - my older cousin and my uncle were among them and we came to visit and watch their performance. I remember not being able to function like I was in a dense fog - not afraid but going to bed that night I was wide eyed not able to leave the image. It was so beyond anything I could ever imagine and these were real people.
Last week I was talking to my next door neighbor about the book and he reminded me of the death toll inflicted by the Japanese in much of Asia so that we forget their atrocities matched Hitler's with Stalin commanding even greater numbers during his reign. He did a great amount of reading last winter for their family trip through Russia, Latvia, Estonia, Poland, Czech Republic on and on down to Turkey finishing it off with a few days rest on a Greek Island - The older boy High School and the younger last year of Jr. High. - Two years ago they did all of South America and last year they hit the high spots across the US. All to say during our conversation he was saying how in places the vistied it was as if WWII ended yesterday - in some areas, palatable is the anger at Russia and in other areas exuberant elation shown because they were American with all sorts of stories again about WWII - they stay in hostels and so had a better mix of conversation than staying in hotels.
Has anyone every looked into the history of why the Japanese went on their rampage starting in the early 30s - what was going on that made them believe conquering Asia was in their cards.
-
From Barb: 'Has anyone every looked into the history of why the Japanese went on their rampage starting in the early 30s - what was going on that made them believe conquering Asia was in their cards.'
Good to hear from you again. There must be many more recent books on the subject, but I found John Toland's The Rising Sun, The Decline and Fall of the Japanese Empire, published in 1970, very interesting.
My computer isn't up to serving up the link that Ella provided for the Nanking atrocities. But I do have the book on it by Iris Chang, The Rape of Nanking. In it she has a reference to an American surgeon, Robert Wilson, who stayed on in Nanking when others were leaving. He was born there, and as a boy was taught geometry by Pearl Buck.
It must have been a nightmare to research and write and left her debilitated by depression. She took her own life in 2004, at the age of 36.
-
Good to see you hobble back to the discussion, Barb. owowowowie...
From the link that Ella provided this morning, it seems that China was the first step towards Japan's rule of the world. The Emperor was considered a god. Japanese children were taught from a young age to be soldiers in the Emperor's army. To rule the world, the first, and most important step - to conquer China. Then a systematic war on every other country, including Europe. Once accomplished, Japan would rule the world. That was the ultimate goal. Every Japanese boy would fight to the death to accomplish this. I think more research is needed to learn what caused the Emperor to want to rule the world.
-
Started looking at some of the propaganda art after reading your post, - some are mighty graphic, as you described. Not sure about their purpose? To frighten American citizens to continue the war with Japan? It sure frightened you! I remember seeing newsreels - Japanese pilots gunning down American planes - with big toothy smiles as they did. They frightened me more than any German soldier did. They seemed to delight in killing. Here's one I think would have stayed with me...
(http://www.crestock.com/uploads/blog/2009/china-propaganda/1950-MacArthur.jpg)
-
Regarding the 1939-40 Japanese treatment of Chinese prisoners I recall a Life Magazine picture of what appeared to be a barbed-wired Japanese prison yard with a prostrate Chinese prisoner on the ground and a Japanese guard armed with a bayonet tipped Rifle aimed at the Chinese. The caption indicated that he was being being prick to get him into a better position for execution. At that time I did not have a Life subscription but regularly read a neighbor's copy.
-
BARBARA, crutches - would they help? Glad to see you here!
STEPHANIE, we hope to see you in a discussion also. THE GOOD EARTH?
"The war was the result of a decades-long Japanese imperialist policy aiming to dominate China politically and militarily and to secure its vast raw material reserves and other economic resources, particularly food and labour. " - Gosh now I forget where on the web I read that, but it was stated in our book also.
Oil particularly as I remember. Resources. And, as our book stated, we had established an embargo on strategic resources to Japan.
JOANP - I couldn't get past that first part of the Youtube video either - it was terrible. I know the navy - the sailors - who fought the Japanese on islands in the Pacific- the marines - all talked of their cruelty, their yells as they fought. They called them "Japs" but today that is a derogatory name for the Japanese. War is hellish.
JONATHAN - I looked up the book, THE RAPE OF NANKING - a summary, from my library:
"Iris Chang's best-selling book The Rape of Nanking forever changed the way we view the Second World War in Asia. It all began with a photo of a river choked with the bodies of hundreds of Chinese civilians that shook Iris to her core. Who were these people? Why had this happened and how could their story have been lost to history? She could not shake that image from her head. She could not forget what she had seen. A few short years later, Chang revealed this 'second Holocaust' to the world. But who was this woman that single-handedly swept away years of silence, secrecy and shame? Her mother, Ying-Ying, provides an enlightened and nuanced look at her daughter, from Iris' home-made childhood newspaper, to her early years as a journalist and later, as a promising young historian, her struggles with her son's autism and her tragic suicide"--Dust jacket
How very sad. Have you read the book?
-
We are getting into the Labor Day weekend and I propose that we finalize our posts and the discussion by tomorrow.
IS THAT ALL RIGHT WITH EVERYONE?
The last chapter is rather a sweeping up of odds and ends of people mentioned in the book. We leave the germans fighting on two fronts and the Allies also fighting on two fronts. IT WAS A GREAT WAR - air, sea and land.
HOPEFULLY, WE WILL NEVER SEE ANOTHER ONE LIKE IT, and I would hope we can discontinue all wars, have peace throughout the world. Why cause each other, all mankind, such heartache!
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I have one question though, maybe someone can answer it - what does this statement mean, how does one interpret it:
"THE ARCHITECTS OF AMERICA"S OVERARCHING ROLE IN THE POSTWAR WORLD..............WERE DETERMINED TO CREATE A PAX AMERICANA, A VISION OF THEIR COUNTRY'S FUTURE............THAT DEMANDED THE 'RESHAPING OF AMERICA'S TRADITIONAL ROLE.......AND A RESTRUCTURING OF THE GLOBAL BALANCE OF POWER.
IT WAS A RESHAPING THAT WOULD LEAD TO THE VIETNAM AND IRAQ WARS, AMONG OTHER FUTURE CONFLICTS."
A restructure of the global balance of power??????
-
Before saying another word, Ella, I'd like to join the others in thanking you and Harold for keeping the discussion moving at a steady pace throughout this long and fact-packed book. Not just covering Lynne Olson's book, but providing plenty to think about as we read. I'd like to thank Lynne Olson, if she can hear me, for the chapter notes and references at the back of the book. She left nothing undocumented. Just the facts, maam.
I've been giving some thought to what some have said about too much on the relationship between C. Lindbergh and Roosevelt during those angry days. If you consider that the struggle really was whether or not America should enter another war, the struggle was between those who believed we needed to intervene, that is was the moral thing to do to save Britain - and the isolationists. The Pres. believed we needed to go, but needed public support first. The obstacle was the vocal Isolationists, successful in swaying the opinion of the American public who really wanted to avoid another war. Charles Lindbergh was the voice of America First. The struggle was between these two groups. You really can't play down Lindbergh's role.
Do you consider yourself an isolationist as far as Syria is concerned? There are many here in Washington who are. Afraid if we get involved, we won't get out. Ella, I'm with you - hoping against hope for world peace. I think the book ended on that note, hopeful, though dubious.
Pax Americana is primarily used in its modern connotations concerning the peace established after the end of World War II in 1945. In this modern sense, the term has come to indicate the military and economic position of the United States in relation to other nations.
But our military might and economic strength did not keep us from entering Vietnam, from Iraq. I read this sobering article in the LA Times ....(before the recent upheaval in Syria.) I think that this is what is meant by "the restructuring of the balance of power.:
The international order that emerged after World War II has rightly been termed the Pax Americana; it's a Washington-led arrangement that has maintained political stability and promoted an open global economic system. Today, however, the Pax Americana is withering, thanks to what the National Intelligence Council in a recent report described as a "global shift in relative wealth and economic power without precedent in modern history" -- a shift that has accelerated enormously as a result of the economic crisis of 2007-2009.
At the heart of this geopolitical sea change is China's robust economic growth. Not because Beijing will necessarily threaten American interests but because a newly powerful China by necessity means a relative decline in American power, the very foundation of the postwar international order. These developments remind us that changes in the global balance of power can be sudden and discontinuous rather than gradual and evolutionary.
-
Thanks, JOAN, for your remarks! But the last paragraph of your explanation of pax americana necessitates that our group here must discuss a book on present-day China. We owe to ourselves, our children, etc.
This phrase alone - a newly powerful China by necessity means a relative decline in American power" is rather frightening. We all have lived in a time where our country has been very powerful and stable in the world, regardless of errors we have made. What does our country's future hold?
Can we find one that is not too technical?
-
The Book Club Online is the oldest book club on the Internet, begun in 1996, open to everyone. We offer cordial discussions of one book a month, 24/7 and enjoy the company of readers from all over the world. Everyone is welcome.
August Book Club Online
THOSE ANGRY DAYS by Lynne Olson
Roosevelt, Lindbergh, and America’s Fight Over World War II, 1939-1941
| (http://www.seniorlearn.org/bookclubs/angrydays/angrydayscover.jpg) |
".............the definitive account of the debate over American intervention in World War II—a bitter, sometimes violent clash of personalities and ideas that divided the nation and ultimately determined the fate of the free world. - The New York Times
“In Those Angry Days, journalist-turned-historian Lynne Olson captures [the] period in a fast-moving, highly readable narrative punctuated by high drama. It’s . . . popular history at its most riveting, detailing what the author rightfully characterizes as ‘a brutal, no-holds-barred battle for the soul of the nation.’ It is sure to captivate readers seeking a deeper understanding of how public opinion gradually shifted as America moved from bystander to combatant in the war to preserve democracy.”—Associated Press |
| DISCUSSION SCHEDULE: |
| August 1-7 | Chapters 1-7 |
| August 8-14 | Chapters 8-14 |
| August 15-21 | Chapters 15-21 |
| August 22-28 | Chapters 22-28 |
Discussion Leaders: Ella (egibbons28@columbus.rr.com) & Harold (hhullar5@yahoo.com)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HAROLD - ---
"THE ARCHITECTS OF AMERICA"S OVERARCHING ROLE IN THE POSTWAR WORLD..............WERE DETERMINED TO CREATE A PAX AMERICANA, A VISION OF THEIR COUNTRY'S FUTURE............THAT DEMANDED THE 'RESHAPING OF AMERICA'S TRADITIONAL ROLE.......AND A RESTRUCTURING OF THE GLOBAL BALANCE OF POWER.
IT WAS A RESHAPING THAT WOULD LEAD TO THE VIETNAM AND IRAQ WARS, AMONG OTHER FUTURE CONFLICTS.
In response to Ella's question here is my version of what the above statement means. In effect it means an American (USA) imposed peace. Apparently "PAX" is a Latin Word meaning peace. Previous epochs have been styled The Pax Romania and Pax Britannia and now it seems to be America's turn.
Since the end result is an imposed Peace, not a voluntary one, Military force imposed by the peace keeper is often required hence in recent years the Korean War, Viet Nam and particularly recent US support of Israel,the Iraq invasion , Annual Multi Billion Dollar payments to Egypt, and now the likely US intervention in a Serian civil War.
-
Thank you, Ella and Harold for leading a thought-provoking discussion on an era I didn't personally experience and hadn't really given any thought.
I fear we are, indeed, reaping what we sowed - and I doubt that very many of us in our "age group" will like the changes.
However, our grandchildren won't know anything else from experience and I have confidence that they will handle things just as we did and our parents did - etc. etc., albeit in a far different manner.
I've just checked out a biography of Alice Roosevelt Longworth. I've only had time to browse the introduction but did catch one statement: "She was the voice of America First." It will be interesting to learn how she interacted with Lindbergh and the others mentioned in "Those Angry Days".
'Til next time.....
-
Yes, I am with Harold on the explanation of Pax Americana - which would explain the interest in entering the Syrian conflict that does not have any 'good' side - Either Assad or the Sunni, which would unite Syria with Iran.
This book appears to be a pivot to so many instances and leaders mentioned that pepper history before and after these 18 months.
My Grandson (age 19) just spent 8 weeks in China and found a few modern magnificent buildings like the Beijing airport, although the smog in Beijing was so thick he could not see beyond a few 100 yards - he spent much time in the interior and the cities are lively but the nation has a long way to go to compare to the life style advantages we take for granted.
Regardless, I do not understand anyone who suggests the success of one nation is at the decline of another - that is believing the economic value of our imagination put into services and products is static and limited so that it is a see saw of success with one nation up and another down -
I just do not see a limited static economic future much like a pie that we grab a section because that is all there is - common sense says to me the pie has been growing larger every century plus, the Asian families would not be sending their children in droves here to the US for their collage education if our higher education was not teaching what they do not offer - which as I understand it from my many Asian Clients, they do not offer a learning path to creativity only, a well honed path to traditional rote scholarship.
Personally I think we have been programed or, like this book enlightened us, the propaganda machine has us leery of China - between our support for South Korea and Taiwan and our combo fear and hatred of Communism, China has never gotten the press that Japan received and continues to receive - if history were the measuring stick China today should be a close ally with mixed feelings about Japan - if we can be so supportive of Japan, who became an economic success story than why not China.
-
What do we read next? I would like to suggest Robert Kaplan's latest book: The Revenge of Geography, with the subtitle: What the map tells us about coming conflicts and the battle against fate.
Everyone must have read one or other of his many books. He has established himself as an authority on the history and politcs of the hot spots in the world. He's described as among the world's "Top 100 Global Thinkers", as a geopolitical analyst, and has served as a member of the Defense Policy Board. And... what a resume!
Pax Americana. What you have said is all very true, but it's not the whole picture. It should also include the shining example the U.S. has shown the world, and which every powerful state has emulated. With great magnanimity it set both Japan and Germany on a path that got them far more than their wars. And, irony of ironies, both the Soviet Union and Red China have adopted variations of the American Way as a way to the future. Pax American is all about competition and, of course, globalization.
This has been a wonderful discussion. What I like best about the book is how the author has left it to the reader to decide who was putting America first, the president or the citizen?
-
Just read your post, Barb. Right on.
These book discussions inevitably take one back to some other book one has read and would now, perhaps, like to read again. I found it interesting that Gilbert Highet was part of the entourage of British Intelligence people in Washington in this period. The Oxford don. If you like the Latin poets, try reading his book, Poets in a Landscape. The crowd that included Vergil, Horace, and Ovid. A wonderful read.
And then there is the Prussian scene. I have a marvellous book by Hedwig von Bismarck, the cousin of the famous Bismarck, written when she reached the age of 95! The spirit of the book is captured in one of her statements, that she had had such a delightful childhood, it kept her cheerful for the rest of her life.
-
And of course, the book Deb recommeded: A Man Called Intrepid, by William Stevenson. If you like intrgue and adventure, this is it.
-
And another by Stevenson, listed in Olson's bibliography: Spymistress,The Life of Vera Atkins, the Greatest Female Secret Agent of World War II. I've got the book, and I see we meet some of the same characters, like Goering and Donavan. And there's FDR. And Churchill, with a column of references, is having a wonderful time.
-
I know the books go on and on - so many characters that we can remember some, but others are quickly gathering dust only to be remembered by those historians writing books - I am thinking these names and deeds feel nostalgic where as truth be told I do not have a similar memory for the history and secondary characters of the first World War much less most other European wars of even Asian conflicts.
Reading Churchill and the Boar war keeps coming up - now I have to find out what that was all about. The characters in Olson's book have long kite tails that could keep me reading for a year or more.
Jonathan - been reading the Ian Kershaw Hitler - whew quite a tome - anyhow find he is coming from his agenda of what was the matter with the man - it appears most Hitler authors have a viewpoint that they write about the man from that view point and most are afraid of saying anything that gives a rounded look without being apologetic or that could be critiqued as having an unhistorical bias about the man - I think I finally found an author that is doing that R.H.S. Stolfi author of Hitler: Beyond Evil and Tyranny.
Stolfi is professor emeritus at the US Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey, CA, and a retired colonel in the US Marine Corps Reserve and most who have critiqued the book make sure his thoughts are looked at through the glass of blame for history however, reading the book I am learning Hitler was like the Roosevelt of Germany for the first 5 years. Roosevelt inherited depression and fear while Hitler inherited run-away inflation and loss of dignity. They both did a yeoman's job of getting their nations on track with Hitler having done it in 5 years. And so it is easy to see, as the author points out the love affair German's had with Hitler and the mania of swooning young girls rushing to see him.
So far, I see Kershaw trying to trace his later inhuman and controlling behavior to his upbringing and early years in Austria - not so sure - that can be fraught with landmines with psychology changing faster than the snap of the fingers with new understandings each year about how the brain works. Because that to me is the million dollar question - when did Hitler go from the vision of a third Reich to European if not World control - is it, as so many books outline others and their behavior that success breeds/needs more and greater success regardless if the success is moral or not.
-
Having started Len Scales The Shaping of German Identity it appears to have been the big discussion with several books written by university professors around the turn the nineteenth into the twentieth century with questions of nationality, a national consciousness followed by, German nationality as a political national consciousness which is traced back to medieval Strasbourg Oaths, in 842 when German lands and French nations began to separate and for the first time the swearing was in separate German and Romance versions.
A Catholic medievalist, Heinrich Finke remarks during a speech in 1916 about World Imperialism and National Movements in the later Middle Ages that the German claim to "epochal achievement the liberation of Europe's peoples from its yoke: it was the racial energy of the fresh and youthful Germanic peoples that once over threw the dominion of imperial Rome."
With all this background that any serious minded person like Lindbergh must have some acquaintance with this line of thinking I can readily see why he believed this was an 'Old World' squabble.
Also, the likeness of character and habits between Hitler and Churchill was spooky to read in separate books about each - if we use childhood as the raison d'être for their adult behavior many similarities - Hitler had a dotting mother, not Churchill but many school age stories are similar and both their adult lives are filled with obsessive behavior and similar outlooks on sex and women. I did not buy but read a few chapters offered on the kindle about the 5 days and then another book about the 80s days that they played cat and mouse with each other just before Pearl Harbor and Hitler succumbing to declare war on the US. Whew what a matched pair - that is when I wondered how much Churchill pushed war and how much Hitler escalated from controlling German lands to wanting World domination or was that desire within Hitler before Churchill's push towards war.
Yes, I am curious about this man - beside my German heritage I look and realize there had to be something there - it took 3 major nations and other national resistance fighters three half years to bring this man to his end - Hollywood may like to depict him as a cartoon character but there is something there that may be worth looking at to see how national pride and economic success can be like a hammer that reminds me now of the fear that many of us have shared about China. Do we unwittingly see another hammer that we fear rather than understanding.
-
Yes Ella I see no reason not to close this discussion after tomorrow, August 30th though I suppose it will be Tuesday before the archive is complete. I think this discussion has turned out to be one of our most interesting book discussion projects. Thank you for your leadership. And thank you all the dozen or more more participants who made the discussion a success.
Ella and I look forward to seeing all of you again in another non.fiction project maybe early next year.
Harold
-
JoanP," Do you consider yourself an isolationist as far as Syria is concerned? There are many here in Washington who are. Afraid if we get involved, we won't get out. Ella, I'm with you - hoping against hope for world peace. I think the book ended on that note, hopeful, though dubious."
At this point, I would consider myself an isolationist, where Syria is concerned. I believe we must never begin an attack/war with anyone, unless we are in absolute danger on our soil, we have a clear plan, and a means to the end. To even think we could hurry up, bomb a few airfields and then come home, and all is right with the world is insanity. I feel there could be terror cells set up in the United States who are just waiting for a green light. There is China and Russia threatening to get involved if we do attack. You have Iran saying they will attack Israel. All for what? Chemicals have been being used, the middle east have had civil unrest for centuries, if Assad is taken out of power (which is not a goal), you have the Muslim brotherhood and Al Quida ready to step into power. There is no clear proof "who" actually is using the chemicals, is it Assad or is it the rebels? I heard the House of Commons rejected the approval of the U.S. attacking Syria. I just see no means to the end. If indeed it is a humanitarian act, then why were we not doing anything when Egypt was slaughtering their people in the streets just a year ago, or when Libya killed our 4 Americans in Benghazi? Why now? It may sound inhumane to some, but I say keep our nose out of it, since they will fight for centuries more.
Ella, "HOPEFULLY, WE WILL NEVER SEE ANOTHER ONE LIKE IT, and I would hope we can discontinue all wars, have peace throughout the world. Why cause each other, all mankind, such heartache!"
My exact sentiments and I could not have said it any better! As for technology, I fear it is here to stay.
BarbStAubrey, I do hope your toes heal quickly and you are not in too much pain. Til our next discussion, my pizan.
Ending the discussion tomorrow is a good idea, since the holiday week end is upon on. Hope you all have a great 3 day week end. I am looking forward to sleeping in past 5:45 a.m.
Ciao~
-
yes, I too would like to thank the discussion leaders....what I have learned thru the discussion and book, looking to other books I must delve into to find out questions now in my mind and unknowns.....so little time so many books ( one day in my life that really stands out for me is the day with the realization I could not possibly read all the books I'd love to read)....am presently re reading Stevenson's "Intrepid"...and intend to look up some of the books noted by people to do with the time period in this book in particular...why Japan pushed into China and the world's focus of Germany at that point people unaware of the Japanese threat {the world according to the west, I mean am sure the east was aware of Japan's manoeuvres }so many aspects of world war 2 to know about...much more interesting for me when I can find a group like this one who share perspectives and thoughts.
Next time hope to download my book onto my new Sony e-reader where I can highlight, underline, make notes to my heart's content and perhaps share more frequently
\You7 ...sorry my cat walked across my keyboard
All the best to all of you
have a nice labour day weekend
Deb
-
THANK ALL OF YOU FOR YOUR INTEREST AND YOUR PARTICIPATION IN THIS DISCUSSION, IN THIS BOOK. IT MAKES HISTORY SO INTERESTING TO DISCUSS IT WITH OTHERS; I RATHER THINK IT WOULD HAVE BEEN DULL TO READ THE BOOK ALONE.
WE WILL BE BACK WITH ANOTHER NONFICTION BOOK IN THE NEAR FUTURE. THANKS FOR ALL YOUR SUGGESTIONS.
WE TAKE THEM ALL UNDER CONSIDERATION.
AGAIN, THANKS, THANKS, THANKS! IT WAS FUN!
-
This has been a most interesting, provocative discussion. May we have many more like it, with Ella and Harold to lead them. Many thanks.
Bellamarie, I'm with you on your cautious approach to getting involved in the Syrian problem. What good will lobbing a few missiles into the country do? I can't understand the British PM's eagerness to go in. But I see his backbenchers have made him change his mind. Was he showing what he believed solidarity with U.S. intentions? Reminds one of PM Blairs support of President Bush's going into Irag after 9/11. After what we have read in Those Angry Days one wonders if its in gratitude for the U.S. support in 1940.
Barb, I'm very impressed by where your researches have taken you and have made a note of the authors and books you mention. It seems to me you might be including the work John Lukacs has done on the strange duel between Churchill and Hilter in your conclusions. I have two of them, The Five Days in London, and The Duel, 10 May - 31 July: The Eighty-Day Struggle Between Churchill and Hitler.
I've got another for you, Deb. The True Intrepid, by Bill Macdonald, who wants to set the record straight.
My feeling after this book, is, What can one believe? See you early in the year.
-
Let me also suggest that we use our non fiction board to make non fiction discussion nominations. I'll see if I can check in there 3 or 4 times a week. I suppose a biography of Hitler might be possible, but perhaps something by another author would be better. Maybe Alfred Speer's, Inside the 3rd Reich"?