Those Angry Days by Lynne Olson ~ August Bookclub Online

[BarbStAubrey]

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]

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.

[JoanP]

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.

[JoanP]

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.

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.

[BarbStAubrey]

Back later - start this weeks chapters today - I too had no idea of Roosevelt's big gaff that rendered him brutum fulmen

[HaroldArnold]

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.         

[HaroldArnold]

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.    

[BarbStAubrey]

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.

[BarbStAubrey]

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.

[HaroldArnold]

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.

[HaroldArnold]

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.

[BarbStAubrey]

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

[BarbStAubrey]

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...

[BarbStAubrey]

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 -

[Ella Gibbons]

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!

[Ella Gibbons]

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? 


 

[Ella Gibbons]

YOO-HOO!!!             YOO-HOO!!!     CALLING ALL INTERESTED PARTIES, POSTERS, PLEASE SIGN IN WITH YOUR COMMENTS, WHETHER OR NOT YOU HAVE THE BOOK

[Ella Gibbons]

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.

[HaroldArnold]

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.

[PatH]

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.

[JoanP]

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?

[JoanK]

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.

[BarbStAubrey]

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.

[JoanK]

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.

[BarbStAubrey]

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.

[JoanP]

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!

[BarbStAubrey]

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.

[HaroldArnold]

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.

[JoanK]

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.

[JoanK]

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.

[bellamarie]

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~
 

[Ella Gibbons]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_military_deployments

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_military_bases

[JoanP]

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!

[Jonathan]

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?

[PatH]

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.

[bellamarie]

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~

[PatH]

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

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.

[HaroldArnold]

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. 

[bellamarie]

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.  

[Ella Gibbons]

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.”