Those Angry Days by Lynne Olson ~ August Bookclub Online

[JoanP]

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   

".............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  & Harold

[BarbStAubrey]

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.  

[JoanP]

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?

[Jonathan]

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.

[Ella Gibbons]

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."

[Ella Gibbons]

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

[Ella Gibbons]

As JONATHAN mentioned Ickes - a foe of Lindbergh's - I will mention a friend.  General Hap Arnold:



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.

[Ella Gibbons]

So.....after reading the first seven chapters of the book, what is your opinion of FDR?

[HaroldArnold]

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.

[HaroldArnold]

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.

[JoanP]

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?

[JoanP]

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!

[bookad]

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)

[Ella Gibbons]

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.

[bookad]

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

[Ella Gibbons]

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?

[Jonathan]

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?

[Ella Gibbons]

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?

[bookad]

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

[Jonathan]

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.

[Jonathan]

'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?'

[JoanK]

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.

[HaroldArnold]

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. 

[BarbStAubrey]

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.

[JoanK]

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.

[Ella Gibbons]

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?

[marjifay]

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

[HaroldArnold]

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.

[marjifay]

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

[JoanP]

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.  

[JoanP]

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?

[Ella Gibbons]

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?

[Ella Gibbons]

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

[BarbStAubrey]

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.

[Ella Gibbons]

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.

[Ella Gibbons]

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?

[Jonathan]

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.

[BarbStAubrey]

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.  

[PatH]

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.

[JoanP]

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?