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]

I wonder if ship captains still keep a log - several of these characters were in the Navy where you where expected to keep a daily log and so their habit would have been formed in their early adult years.

[bellamarie]

Ella,  "I hope men and women in politics or industry today  are keeping diaries or journals so that future generations can understand motives for actions.  Historians of the future need something; we don't write letters anymore, so diaries or journals will be very important."

Do you suppose with all the secrets and lies they would give an honest account if they did keep a diary today?  I would love it if one day we could have something to help us understand the reasons why certain actions were taken or NOT taken in serious situations that have happened from about 1970 til today.  But then again, would it really make a difference in how we feel about it?  Maybe.....it's kind of like when someone hurts you or lies, sometimes knowing the why eases the pain, allows for forgiveness and let's you see it from their inner perspective making it possibly more acceptable or at least understandable.  Sometimes I feel like trying to understand presidents and politicians are a bit like the teaching of God...we are not to question, just have faith.  Or at least hope they are looking out for America's best interest.  Okay a bit too deep in thought this morning....going to try to finish the book today.

Ciao for now~

[JoanP]

I would think most politicians are afraid to keep diaries, Ella! Do you think the presidents still keep tapes - or did that end with Nixon's?  His read like a diary, didn't they?

"...waiting with baited breath for what was going to happen next (as if it was a fiction work)" bookad

I feel the same way about the months right before the war, bookad - as described in the next chapter (28.)  At the end, I found myself wondering what would have happened without the Pearl Harbor attack?  The country was so unprepared for war - not even attempting to build an army or an aresenal in the event of war.  Our economy was booming!  As St. Exupery put it - "Americans are spending  90% on cars and chewing gum, !0% to stop Hitler."  I was just a little kid at the time - but remember well the new car - and the big new house we moved into in 1941!  

I was interested when Harry Truman made his appearance - made it real, realizing that in not so many years, he'd be the next president.  The conclusion t of the Senate investigation into our defense program he initiated,  - "we are in a mess."

Do you think the ship logs would reflect the low morale of the servicemen, Barb?  I wonder how many of the draftees wrote letters home expressing their frustration...  Hopefully they have been preserved somewhere - as good as diaries, I would think.  50% of them threatened to desert if not discharged after their one year was up.  They see no emergency that should require them to stay longer than they were assigned when drafted.

I was surprised, and then not surprised to read of the Gallup pollster's promise do everything to serve the president's needs, to design its polls to serve the president by influencing public opinion - as long as their connection was kept secret.   How do you read today's polls on significant issues?
 Months before Pearl Harbor, the Gallup poll revealed two things -
    1. 70% want America to keep out of war
    2. 70% want to do everything to defeat Hitler, even war.

I suppose the result did what it set out to do - reflected the President's quandary.  Did it help him?  How on earth would this have been decided, had it not been for Pearl Harbor?

[BarbStAubrey]

Polls --- I quit answering any of them - they call after mailing me they would call - I am uncomfortable - I do not know them and do not trust my information is protected - most polls I find are simply excuses to continue to keep you on their mailing, email, phone list - unless I recognize a long distance phone number I let my phone do the answering - if the call is from someone who really knows me they will leave a message - for awhile I was receiving a Nielsen chart to fill out and let that go as well - I find polls today to be a joke.

[Ella Gibbons]

I agree with BARBARA about phone calls and polls

I don't understand, JOANP, why politicians could not keep a diary?   Keep it at home - when they retire it will refresh their memory when they write their book!  Many do.

Nixon did not keep a diary - he recorded every conversation in the oval office  (which, of course, is illegal to tape conversations unless the party knows it)- they are very revealing and disgusting to hear him cussing at times.  I would imagine they are onlin.    He believed the tapes would help him in writing his book in the future; instead they revealed much about him that would have sent him to prison if Ford had not pardoned him.

BELL - yes, I believe they would be honest if it were a private diary kept at hom and had it understood by their heirs that it would be destroyed at their death.   Why wouldn't they?

Chapter 21 - WHO IS DER FUHRER THANKING?

[Ella Gibbons]

The Nixon tapes - excerpts 

http://nixon.archives.gov/virtuallibrary/tapeexcerpts/index.php

[Jonathan]

That is an interesting bit on polling the public and the uses made of it, in Chapter 22. It seems some leaders feel they cannot lead without them. Quoting from page 343:

'If only he (the president)  would lead, they said, the people would follow. Among those who argued this position was Hadley Cantril, a social psychologist who had become, in effect, Roosevelt's private pollster....Cantril's group helped design questions for the Gallup pollsters and conducted its own analyses of Gallup data. A strong liberal and FDR loyalist. Cantril offered his services to the White House, making it clear he would do everything he could to make the polls on which he worked serve the president's needs: "We can get confidential information on questions you suggest, follow up any hunches you may care to see tested regarding the determination of opinion, and provide you with the answers to any questions asked."

I doubt if a really strong leader ever consulted the polls. Had FDR dismissed his Brain Trust by the late thirties? The book conveys the impression that he was drifting, almost floundering in the heavy seas.

Where's the anger promised in the title? Could this book make for mad readers?

There is one diary I want to get my hands on. Icke's. That villain.

[bookad]

I have vol 1 of 6 written by Sir Winston Churchill about the history of world war 2....the volume I have ends with his becoming the Prime Minister of England....it would be interesting to read details in the volume describing the time frame we are dealing with in this book....everyone has their own perspective though (imagine reading Hitler's diary) ....apparently he (Winston) saved "every scrap of significant material for the books he knew he would eventually write. Every order he issued, every memorandum or personal telegram, was immediately set up in type, printed, and filed.''

[Jonathan]

Did any of you watch 'Our Nixon' the other night? Wasn't that interesting?

[Jonathan]

Dear old Winnie. The only opinion he ever consulted was his own.

[HaroldArnold]

Regarding politician, I know from the many published late life career memoirs published by many WWII principles indicate their propensity to keep diarys and other detailed records. Nixon of course came to regret his use of the White House recording facilities.  In his case I think his eager use was vanity inspired.   I understand the facilities even more modernized and enhanced are still operating in the Oval office today.   Perhaps the modern occupants of that most prestigious office have learned that sometimes it is nice to work in the rose garden.

Regarding Politian’s attitude toward acting according to the prevailing Public opinion polls, I am more inclined to believe they do tend of pay attention to them.  For me I think FDR in particular early on understood that if Hitler was to be stopped it would have to be through a victorious war.  He seemed willing to aid England toward that end whenever he thought the American people and of course in particular the Congress would let him.

Regarding the German/Soviet alliance treaty there is a good wikiedpia article on it. It was signed just 2 Week before  the war began.  Apparently it divided Poland between Germany and Russia.  On September 1st  Germany invaded Poland from the West.   Later the Soviet Union took its half from the east.  Though the treaty included mutual non-aggression pledges, on June 22,1941  Stalin found out just how much the non-aggression pledge was worth to Hitler

[bellamarie]

I heard on the news yesterday that the last Nixon tapes were just released and they thought Nixon while talking to Reagan sounded like Nixon was drunk.

Which do you think is more credible, a personal journal or tape recordings, or do you think there would be no difference?

While I tend to think they both would be credible, I tend to lean toward the validity of the tape recordings, (provided they have not been edited.) I think the difference between journal writing vs using tape recordings to keep track of accounts and conversations is:
1.  Journaling, you are the only one who is giving the account, so once someone reads said journal it is one sided, that of the writer.  So you are getting what that individual has interpreted or perceived, so their perception of things are not necessarily how others involved would have perceived it.  
2. When tape recording, I feel a person can at times get so comfortable and involved in the conversation, they forget they are being taped, which can reveal much more than intended, as in Nixon's case.  In tape recording you get a voice of the people that allows you to hear the annunciation and attitude, allowing you to get the individuals personality and state of mind.

Since being more active in social sites on line I have come to realize that when you read a person's comments you can very easily misinterpret their intent. Reading someones words allows you to place emphasis on what you personally are vested in.  If you then speak to the person, say on the phone or in person, you may actually see what you read, in an entirely different light.

So the final chapters and FDR is forced to enter a war!  

pg. 424 "Dec. 4,  1941...During the intermission , the Philharmonic radio audience heard CBS announcer John Charles Daly break in with a stunning news bulletin's Japanese had bombed Pearl Harbor.  At that moment, Schlesinger later wrote, "an era came to an end."  It was also the end of the debate over America's involvement in the war."

The members asking FDR how could we not be ready is a bit confusing to me because they worked with him and could see what he refused to do to prepare.

pg. 425  "Early in the evening, he (FDR) summoned cabinet members and congressional leaders to the White House......Tempers ran high at the meeting.  Jumping to his feet, a red-faced Senator Tom Connally, the new chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, banged a table with his fist and exclaimed: "How did they catch us with our pants down, Mr. President?"  His head bowed, Roosevelt said softly, "I don't know, Tom.  I just don't know."  Henry Stimson posed the same question:  How could the U.S. military, "who had been warned long ago and were standing on the alert, have been taken so completely by surprise?"  

How weak did FDR look to his administration replying, "I don't know." He had dragged his feet in building up the military, he dragged his feet in making a decision to help Britian, he dragged his feet in deciding to enter the war and as the saying goes, "Nero fiddled while Rome was burning"  So here we are, FDR forced to finally make a decision.  No more dragging his feet, no more indecisiveness.  Yet he is still worrying about public opinion and asks this question:

pg. 246  "At one point, the president asked Murrow and Donovan what both considered a rather curious question.  Did they believe that, given the Japanese attack on U.S. soil, the American people would now support a declaration of war? "

He may have been considered a good president in the years of the New Deal, but for me leading up to World War 11, he seemed to lack courage and leadership in leading the U.S., and relied heavily on the polls for deciding what to do next.  When in all reality we read the polls were tampered with to appease him.  

Ciao for now~

[BarbStAubrey]

Sounds to me more like the guy could not win for losing - earlier, after he figured out a new approach to the dilemma of helping Britain, which would have put us in a more able position at least in production of arms, we had everyone from leadership within the military, and manufacturers dragging their feet trying to sabotage the whole Lend lease operation so that it was a joke and a slap in the face to Britain - he could not get the country moving - it looks to me like none of these folks want to own their part in our being so unprepared.  

This is what amazes me, how in the military especially they can disobey the president and persuade other military leaders to act the opposite of what the president wants - I thought the president was Commander in Chief - maybe he is only Commander in Chief during war - I do not know - but civilians fighting among themselves I can understand but the military taking it into their head to do what they want I just do not understand.

We know the office of the president is not a dictatorship and yet, some presidents attempt to treat the position as if it were - however, to read the mood of the people is not easy when strong conflicting viewpoints are part of daily input through mail from the public, various newspapers as well as, differing views among those who have leadership positions - Lindbergh sure become more and more outspoken and he represented a large group and so it appears to me Roosevelt was working with a very divided nation that would not put up with the likes of a Churchill approach since anything that appeared to be dictatorial was too much like the authority we associate with a monarchy or a dictatorship. There were some who already thought Roosevelt was acting too much the dictator.

To me this book only shows how we want to blame and really there is no one to blame - everyone holds sincere views and a real democracy includes the freedom to voice and support differeing views. We may voice the concept of a 'more perfect union' but I think we assume a perfect union that can achieve a utopian existence is possible - I think achieving the sought after happiness-utopia is less so where every viewpoint has an equal footing, where various views are shared by a huge percentage of voters. These views become causes taking on a life of their own so that all those who are remotely behind a viewpoint become a force. When two forces emerge there is a clash - we thought the Viet Nam war caused a clash and here is evidence disruptive clashes still existed after the Civil War.

We do not want any tampering with outcome and yet, we seem to exact severe punishment for those who uncover secret tampering or according to the wind those whose secrets are uncovered. Really Woodward and Bernstein were the Snowden of their day.  Amazing how the wind blows.

[Jonathan]

'but I remember well the new car - and the big new house we moved into in 1941!' from JoanP.

There's part of the answer, Barb, why manufacturers were dragging their feet. No money to be made with lend-lease. Can't do business with a country that's broke.

Do you know that U.S. people were doing a good business with Japan, supplying them with things necessary to carrying out their aggressions in China until well into 1939?

"How did they catch us with our pants down, Mr. President?"  His head bowed, Roosevelt said softly, "I don't know, Tom.  I just don't know."  

Good quote, Bellamarie. The Japanese blindsided the president, who was in any case totally distracted by the Brits and domestic politics. He spent too much time worrying about guys like Lindbergh. See page 435 on the pressure he put on Attorney General Francis Biddle to indict twenty-eight American-Fascists on charges of sedition.

Here's a happy note, from page 452: 'In 1954, President Dwight D. Eisenhower reinstated Lindbergh in the Air Force Reserve, with the rank of brigadier general.'

I've thought so all along. Lindbergh was a caualty of the war. I was disappointed that even Anne would not support him. The Desmoines speech was a sincere attempt at truth. Of course it alarmed the Brits at BSC and others who were fighting for their lives. Interesting to read that the Anti-Defamation League had offices across the hall from BSC.

[bellamarie]

BarbStAubrey,  Sounds to me more like the guy could not win for losing - earlier, after he figured out a new approach to the dilemma of helping Britain, which would have put us in a more able position at least in production of arms, we had everyone from leadership within the military, and manufacturers dragging their feet trying to sabotage the whole Lend lease operation so that it was a joke and a slap in the face to Britain - he could not get the country moving - it looks to me like none of these folks want to own their part in our being so unprepared.

I did not get that impression.  FDR was president, HE should have set the pace and showed leadership which he failed to do leaving his military, administration, Britain and the American people constantly trying to figure out why he refused to lead and take action.

pg. 288 "Four days after signing Lend-Lease into law, Franklin Roosevelt went before the White House Correspondents Association to declare, "Our democracy has gone into action...Every plane, every instrument of war that we can spare now, we will send overseas."  Those listening to him were struck by the president's fervor and sense of urgency as he underscored the vital importance of this new effort to save Britain and help defeat Hitler.  "Here in Washington," he continued, "we are thinking in terms of speed, and speed now.  And I hope that that watchword--'speed, and speed now'--will find its way into every home in the nation." 

Roosevelt's energy and combativeness that night reminded some in the audience of a warrior donning his armor for battle.  To Raymond Clapper, FDR's address "was a fighting speech without the troops, a speech that the president might make after war had been declared."  But then...nothing happened.  As was true following a number of other rousing speeches by Roosevelt, little was done afterward to transform his rhetoric into reality."

pg.  289 "During the crucial weeks and months following Lend-Lease's passage, Roosevelt seemed disinclined to do much about the problem.  According to FDR biographer Kenneth S. Davis, "a strange, prolonged, exceedingly dangerous pause in presidential leadership" set in. 
pg. 290 " Whatever the reasons for the president's torpor, it was causing restiveness and unease in Washington and throughout the country.  A government report on current public opinion noted considerable dissatisfaction with FDR's handling of both domestic and international matters.  "The one course more disastrous than having no policy at all is to decide upon a policy and then fail to fulfill it."
pg. 292  From the day Stimson joined the administration, he acted as a spur to Roosevelt, prodding him to lead rather than follow public opinion.  But of the issue of convoy protection, the president stubbornly resisted Stimson's attempts at persuasion, as he did all other effforts on the subject.
pg. 294  After a walk with Harry Hopkins, Treasury Secretary Henry Morgenthau noted in his diary that both Roosevelt and Hopkins "are groping as to what to do.  They feel that something has to be done but don't know just what.  Hopkins said...he thinks the President is loath to get into war and would rather follow public opinion than lead it."  In mid-May, Roosevelt told Morgenthau: "I am waiting to be pushed in."

Throughout the entire book, the author shows Roosevelt lacked leadership, and waited for public opinion.  Americans wanted a leader.  Every time Roosevelt made a speech and got a bill passed the polls would show the people were behind him.  Yes, he had the America First group disagreeing with him, but ultimately the people would support him.  As soon as he gave the green light, once Pearl Harbor attacked, and he no longer could drag his feet and stay out of war, the factories, manufacturers, military men, etc. etc. willingly gave him there best and fastest aide.  They wanted and needed Roosevelt's leadership. 

I strongly feel had Japan not attacked Pearl Harbor, and Roosevelt did not have to deal with any threats directly with American soil, he would not have entered the war on Britain's behalf, or the war may have dragged on much longer without our boots on the ground.

[bellamarie]

Jonathon, "Here's a happy note, from page 452: 'In 1954, President Dwight D. Eisenhower reinstated Lindbergh in the Air Force Reserve, with the rank of brigadier general.'

Yes, indeed it was a happy note for me as well.  Regardless of a person's view, pro or con, when we are in war time you must set aside your differences and come together for the good of the country.  No one would be more beneficial to our country as far as knowledge of aircraft as Lindbergh.  Henry Ford was well aware of it and was smart enough to go beyond the administration and hire Lindbergh.  When I read this I felt like, hip, hip, hooray!  It was a "Spirit of St. Louis" moment, and I could just hear....Up we go into the wild blue yonder.......

But then the euphoria changes in the last pages of the book when the author reveals the character of Lindbergh the family man.  But I will discuss this later....for now, I want to relish in the fact Lindbergh found his rightful place in flying the aircraft for the military incognito!!!

Ciao for now~

[BarbStAubrey]

Wow - we will be repeating the opposite viewpoints as if that is something we should agree upon here in this discussion - I have a problem with an author having expectations, as many in life have expectations of how a job, that is not their job should be done - typically those finding fault are never perfect nor have they had the job they are Monday Morning quarterbacking about -

We are only reading this authors impression and there are many other authors who share other points of view - I see it one way and you see it another - that is fine but lets continue to share from our viewpoints rather than trying to convince each other to change our views as if there is only one view -

We know that NO ONE has any idea of what Roosevelt was thinking, planning or waiting for - author after author tells you it is just conjecture since there is no Oval Office tapes or personal diary explaining his why, what and wherefore -

So far I have found Lynne Olson's style to constantly create, not only an explosion of secret historical information but a drama she creates based on her opinion - so I find myself checking and rechecking with other authors and prefer not to give much credence to her opinions about those she never met and is writing about from researched hearsay.

But again, that is me - and again , we all have our viewpoint not only reading the book, our respect for the author, our memory of the times and our understanding of the times from other authors - all that is subjective. It is OK that you see Roosevelt primarily as a foot dragger - and there are sentences to support that viewpoint - I lean on other sentences and have a different point of view. And that I think is not only OK but why we discuss a book - so we can have other viewpoints that alone we would not conjure.

I would also consider who in the story is complaining about his dragging his feet - certainly not the isolationists and so I see the author is simply fanning a fire with those remarks - to others she may not - not sure of the action expected but then I was never in a national leadership role during war. OK lets us be OK - Peace...

[bellamarie]

BarbStAubrey, Please forgive me if I appeared to be trying to force anyone to change their views on anything.  I can assure you it was never my intent.  This book has seemed to reveal many things that indeed is from one author's opinion.  I may have mistook her opinions for facts, only because I assumed she had material to substantiate them. I have nothing but high regard and respect for your postings and views.  I admire that you are cross checking and bringing us other sources to draw from.  I was not born in the years of FDR so I can not in any way have a personal opinion, or memory of Roosevelt's thoughts and actions back then, I am only conjecturing and surmising from this book.  Each of us can respectfully agree to disagree, that is what makes for a good discussion.  One view would be so boring....lolol  I know I can be passionate when it comes to politics so again, please accept my apologies if I have ever offended or seemed to force one/my opinion on any one.

Ciao for now~

[bookad]

BarbStAubrey---from your last comment.....with all the diary quotes, repeatedly again and again...I was wondering about my impressions about FDR and his hesitation and back and forth on the question of helping a country in dire need; one that reflected the values of his country.....in the William Stephenson book I (mind you it was quite awhile ago I read it, and I was not around when this suspenseful time occurred ) was feeling FDR within his mind was behind the countries against Germany & was pulling for his country to be there with him....

a couple of chapters back in last weeks reading it was suggested that even with voting in congress, people may vote with their future in mind and not necessarily their beliefs and the vote reflected only 1 vote between 2 sides....(while a number of polled congressmen were found to have voted against what they in fact were for, due to election time coming up so it seems many more were in fact for aiding Britain but the vote was far from reflecting that fact ..............democracy not demonstrating one of its better sides...........

it would be interesting to have the set of books Sir Winston Churchill wrote about the second world war....I have book one 'The Gathering Storm' but it relates his time up to becoming Prime Minister of England.....further down the line would be the books discussing his impression of his time with FDR and what was said between the two; if in fact they were talking truths not trying to play with facts to better succeed where they wished the direction of each of their countries to follow

Deb

[HaroldArnold]

We got rather abruptly into the post Pearl Harbor discussion without much consideration of the rapid changes in American attitude covered in Chapters 22 and 23.  This would have been during the summer and fall of 1941. One evidence of the rapidly change in American opinion mentioned by the Author was the new tone of American comic book literature with Nazi type characters invading Dog patch  and Little Abner/Daisy Mae etc gallantly defending their turf. Other examples were also cited.   Also the The US had already entered the shooting War in the North Atlantic since FDR in the Summer of 1940 had Authorized the Navy to Convey ships over the first 1/3 of the crossing to Britain'  

In my view FDR was cautious but seemed to me quite ready to change as American public opinion changed.   The unexpected switch complicated the problem with Churchill fearing the US would abandon its aid to Britain to concentrate on its Pacific war.  That fear was erased before the end of the week by Hitler's mid week declaration of War against the United States despite the fact that his foreign minister and most of his advisers recommended against it.  This untimely declaration followed by the the prompt weekend  US declaration of War against Germany relived Churchill of his of his fear and in fact assured that the US and UK would put priority on defeating Germany.  

[BarbStAubrey]

Interesting Harold - Ella - who else here has living memory of Dec. 7, 1941 - I just do not remember all this navel-gazing that is described in the book - I know there were many more recent theories that FDR was complicit in setting a domino of tit for tat that would logically conclude with the Japanese attack and this author is debunking that theory -

At the time I remember our fear of the Japanese was palatable and everyone was looking at the bottom of every salt and pepper shaker and do dad on our shelves for a stamp 'Made in Japan' then  smashing in the trash the items - I also think since we had visible in-color posters showing the horror of the Nanking attack and massacre we had in our minds eye the Japanese being a brutal unfeeling race. Where as part of the malaise over Hitler was the huge German American population in this nation - There were little to few immigrants from south of the border - the Irish and Italian families had not achieved the acceptance in our communities of the Germans and so it was more like trying to sort out what cousins to set aside within the family.

I just remember an almost immediate shot of energy - none of the malaise that accompanied 9/11 with average folks and professionals sifting through the damage - For most of the nation if not all, hearing the president say 'This day will live in infamy' was a rallying call that left navel-gazing by leaders as to how and who to blame for the spilt milk to historians.

[Ella Gibbons]

Oh, we have a whole week of interesting incidents leading up to Pearl Harbor day.  I am amused by Big Bill and Little Bill (Donovan and Stephenson) attempting to unseat Edgar J. Hoover.  (Did anyone see the movie Hoover?)  He was legendary; every young boy in my era played g-man.

All the spying back and forth between these enemies makes for wonderful books and movies and I've read many of them.  I like spy stories, espionage and think of the thousands of books and movies this war inspired.

I know the Germans were attempting to build an atomic weapon systerm - was it at Peenmunde in Germany, a llittle village?  And they certainly were ahead of us in rocketry - think of the rocket scientists we somehow got out of Germany to help with the space program.

1940 saw a country in confusion - a president does need the country behind him before he makes a decision that would inflict hardship on every citizen.  As I said before, I admire FDR for his caution which I think is one kind of leadership (how I wish GWBush had been a bit more cautious before he got us in war with Middle East).

 We had not been attacked, but the concept of democracy in the world was disappearing and we alone, with a weakened G.Britain, had the strength to hold down the fort.   What to do?  Could you decide?

Germany was not going to attack the USA.  It has been argued forever and ever whether or not FDR knew of the Japanese intentions to attack.

Gotta run for now - off to the see the movie - THE BUTLER.  

Someday perhaps we should discuss a book on the 1960's.  Anyone know a good one?

[Ella Gibbons]

If some of you youngsters do not know what G-men were click here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G-Man_(slang)

[HaroldArnold]

Ella and all:  we don't hear the term "G-Man" much any more, but back in the 1940 it was commonly used to mean FBI agent.  It stood for Government Man.  I' remember my 1940 tour of the FBI headquarters that was confudted by an FBI agen that I am quite sure I would have identified the agent conducting the tour as a G Man.

[HaroldArnold]

Back 4 0r 5 days ago I remember someone asked "just who was our Hitler thanking in Chapter 25 that she entitled Chapter 25,"Der Fuhrer Thanks You For Your Loyalty." Actually Hitler never issued such a thank ..you statement .  Actually this is reference to a 1940's incident at an America First Rally where  Congressman Hamilton Fish was addressing the crowd with a fir-ere Isolationist speech When  a person from the crowd handed the congressman a card reading "Der Fuhrer thanks you for your loyalty."  The press had been alerted and the incidence was well publicized by the Interventionists.

Actually Though there is no recorded thank you, there were a few Americans who Hitler should have appreciated,  There were others but the most German loyal of all was a naturalize American, George Sylvester Viereck,  He served as Nazi Germany's Publicist in the US.  For years he had advised the German Government on matters of American Public opinion and and on German Government's American policy.  Viereck ended up spending years in Federal prison after conviction on disloyalty charges.
 

[Jonathan]

Somewhere in the house is a bullet-riddled, human torso-shaped target that the FBI agent presented to my son as a souvenir of the G-man's shooting skill. From there we went to the Smithsonian to see the Spirit of ST Louis.

How can anyone read this book without getting angry about something? I think Olson has made a great story of that stormy period before the actual war. As she has it in the subtitle, it was a battle over the war. And the main characters for her were Roosevelt and Lindbergh. It's obvious that she wasn't always sure how to feel about either one.

Two heroic characters. Both in way, reluctant warriors. Lindbergh ended by flying missions in the Pacific. Perhaps Roosevelt could have done more to prevent the war. As it turned out, in my view, Lindbergh was crucified, and Roosevelt might have been impeached for allowing foreign agents and fifth columnists, and comic strip artists to sway the mood of the country.

[Jonathan]

'I have seen the science I worshiped and the aircraft I loved destroying the civilization I expected them to serve.'Charles Lindbergh, p454

[Jonathan]

'Fame makes it very cumbersome to live one's life. Anne Morrow Lindbergh, p 457

[Putney]

I am one of those people who were "there" , as I am 88..Of course I was only 14 in 1939, and then as now 14 year olds have much more important things to think about, than war, for goodness sake!..

Mostly the book has given me a much closer look,at the times and people, that I had, even as an "adult".

I was living in Washington DC, married, and with a brand new little girl, when peace arrived..And we were there when FDR died..I had nothing but the most respect, for that President..I was not innocent enough to believe that he could only be right, but I did believe that he was a remarkable president, who had pulled the country out of a crushing depression,. and who had used his "power" to make us believe we really were the best country in the world..

I have surprised myself, while reading this book, by how much I really didn't know..Not just at the time, but through the years..Of course I have read other books that  more or less touched on all of the topics this one had covered, (and of course I have also gone to other sources to try and check on certain points)but I guess they just didn't make me think as much as this one has..

So thank you all..I am so very glad that I have found this site..( I was a member of  SeniorNet.org for many years, and have a WebWandering tee shirt to prove it)

[BarbStAubrey]

So glad you joined us Putney - quite a read isn't it. I came in here having finally finished the entire book and thinking up to the last few pages the after thought was redundant - I didn't really care what became of those involved in this pre war battle of ideas - and then... Holy Hannah I did not see that coming - was there a newsflash 10 years ago that I missed - oh oh oh - what a sorting out for Reeve, Land, Scott and Jon - I see from the online web site that he died alone in Hawaii at age 72 having lived there alone for several years so it appears Anne was living a separate life in Vermont.

Both Roosevelt and Lindbergh thoroughly populated the earth didn't they - both has strong supportive wives filled with wisdom that they cast aside however, I wonder what Roosevelt would have said or thought if he was told of Lindbergh's secret life.

As someone else mentioned in an earlier post, I am glad his expertise was used during WWII and he was re-instated with his commission and rank.

Olson sure had the issue of Jews in America right - it appears that it was all right and expected as long as you did not publicize saying out-loud what was truth.

What we forget is that the Japanese were creating their own holocaust through out Asia - the difference, there were no ovens - but most say during the 1930s through WWII the Japanese killed 10,000,000 people, which included almost 6,000,000 Chinese, Indonesians, Koreans, Filipinos, and Indochinese - and then civilian Westerners, Pacific Islanders and those killed in combat.

For the last 15 years or so I have helped over 36 families from Indonesia buy their homes and a few of the older clients had tales - how they hid in the forest living off roots and berries so they or their daughters would not be raped and killed. One client, the wife was a 'Joy' girl for the Japanese along with her mother, who after the war arranged with a soldier from Texas to marry and bring to America the daughter and the child that resulted from her daughter's war experience. No love - big age difference - but they both stood by each other till his death about 10 years ago.

[HaroldArnold]

I think it really amazing how quickly the United States military transformed from a confused, poorly organized armed service in 1940 to an army/navy/air force capable of fighting offensive war in both the Pacific and Atlantic oceans.  During 1941 Lynne Olson paints a dismal picture of morale of the US army.  The new draftees were miserable making 30 a month while in civilians working in defense plants were making several hundred.   The situation became worse in 1942 when that year legislation extended their term as it turned out indefinitely.

Yet once the war began, already in the spring of 1942 Navy carriers successfully blocked Japanese offensive action aimed at Australia in a carrier battle in the Coral Sea.  This action was followed in the summer of 1942 by the battle of Midway, another most decisive carrier battle that was the last real Japanese offensive thrust.   Thereafter the pacific war was successive US island hopping operations expected to cumulate at the Japanese home islands.  Meanwhile In the Atlantic US army was being built up in England and by November 1942 the first offensive US/UK action was launched in French North Africa.

[Ella Gibbons]

PUTNEY!  WELCOME TO OUR SITE.   STAY WITH US!   IF YOU HAVE A BOOK YOU WOULD LIKE US TO DISCUSS LET US KNOW.  SO GLAD YOU POSTED!  I was eleven years old in 1939, but certainly do remember the war years even though I was in high school.   I married a veteran of WWII later.

Harold, who lives in Texas, and myself, who live in Ohio, have never met but we both enjoy nonfiction and discussing it with others.  So we hope all are enjoying it.

Truman is quoted on page 348 - "If we see that Germany is winning, we ought to help Russia, and if Russia is winning, we ought to help Germany, and that way let them kill as many as possible."

Practial Harry!

But Russia was our ally, helping us win the war against Germany, we gave aid to Russia.  Hitler had forgotten what happened to Napoleon's amies when they attempted to invade Russia:

"Napoleon Bonaparte is generally regarded as one of history’s top military tacticians. But 200 years ago  he committed a grave error by leading his Grande Armée—likely the largest European armed force ever assembled to that point—across the Niemen River into Russia. Although it never lost a pitched battle there, the Grande Armée was almost completely wiped out within six months by freezing temperatures, food shortages, disease and Russian assaults. This proved to be the beginning of the end for Napoleon, who was forced into exile in April 1814."

Military historians would have remembered.  

[Ella Gibbons]

HAROLD mentioned how poorly organized the country was in 1940 but it wasn't much better in 1941: "....the year will go down in history as the year we almost lost the war before we finally got into it."  I am somewhat surprised, Harold, that you didn't mention Sam Rayburn, the famous speaker of the House from Texas, for years and years.   We could probably do a bio of him someday.

But in July of that year FDR again was able to persuade the country of the danger to the country and called for action - and the public responded. (p.354)  That's leadership.

As BARBARA stated the country did use Lindbergh's expertise in aviation; how foolish it would have been to ignore the man.  

You would have to have been at the movies, as Harold, Putnery, Jonathan and I were during this period, to remember and appreciate the propaganda in the movies.   I had no idea  that the MARCH OF TIME was a powerful tool "creating staged dramatizations to its narration and documentary footage.....biased and inflammatory."

Do we recognize the news that we see on TV daily as  "powerful tools" to stimulate our beliefs, biased and inflammatory?

I love the quote from Anne Lindbergh, JONATHAN.  Cumbersome to be famous; there are many other words we could put in place of the word "cumbersome."  

[Ella Gibbons]

I just have to ask a question of all of you.   How many of you are fans of TCM?  Have you seen any of the movies mentioned in Chapter 23?

[bellamarie]

Ella, I saw the movie The Butler a few days after it opened in the theaters.  After seeing it, I heard on the news how some groups were boycotting it because Jane Fonda played Nancy Reagan, and while doing interviews she wore a tee shirt of herself dressed in Hanoi garb.  They said, isn't it time we forgive and forget, since she apologized for her treasonous acts during the Veit Nam war? But, then they asked was she really sorry, if she could now come out wearing that tee shirt on purpose, to make a statement while being interviewed.  Then a few days later, I saw a post on Facebook where Michael Reagan has spoken out and is furious the movie portrayed his father Ronald as a racist.  He said the line in the movie about the racial issue, his father would never have said.  So it seems even today producers and actors/actresses are using the movie industry to promote their political agendas to reach the American people.

Welcome Putney, it is nice to have yet one more person who was there in the time of World War 11 and can share some insight from your childhood/young adult memories.  I too can say this book has shed much light on events from 1939 - 1941 I had no idea of.  I was not much of a history buff in school, but seniorlearn has been a great way for me to not only get a chance to learn about history, but enjoy it through the discussions as I learn.

So, our last pages show Lindbergh led a double life.  Indeed, what would Roosevelt felt about this, had he known?  It would probably give Roosevelt more assurance he was a man who could not be trusted.  Double life/ double agent, is what I think Lindbergh's opposers would assess.  I liked Lindbergh throughout the book and was very saddened to read about his affairs and his children finding out they had siblings all over the world.  Ann I'm sure was not so naive to think while he was gone for months and months he was just traveling for fun.  Their marriage became a marriage of convenience which is not an uncommon thing.  I still felt sad to learn this.

Okay gotta run....Ciao for now~

[Jonathan]

Welcome to the discussion, Putney. Like you I'm surprised by how much I have learned in this book, and the posts from all of you. I can appreciate your feeling about FDR:

'he was a remarkable president, who had pulled the country out of a crushing depression,. and who had used his "power" to make us believe we really were the best country in the world..'

And as a second act, he pulled the world out of the cataclysmic disorder it had fallen into. In my subsidiary reading in this discussion I came across a bit of new information. FDR made a speech in Kingston, Ontario, in 1936. No doubt at the Royal Military College there. In it he pledged U.S. help if Canada should ever be threatened by an aggressor. I never knew that. Would that be U.S. policy in perpetuity? Like the Monroe Doctrine.

Just want you to know that Canada thinks of you as the best neighbor in the world. Y'all come to see us sometime.

Some thing else I have learned. I have made many trips to the Adirondacks in New York. My way always took me past Kingston, then across the St Lawrence into the U.S.A. and past Fort Drum near Watertown. Our book mentions General Hugh Drum, commander of the U.S. First Army. Would the Fort have been named after him in recognition of services rendered? How often I have stopped at the coffee shop near the base and found myself surrounded by young soldiers preparing to go on missions around the world.

[Jonathan]

Don't feel sad, Bellamarie. The president did not die in Eleanor's arms. Was she sorry? We will never know.

[BarbStAubrey]

Please read this link - we keep talking as if WWII was an event of its own and it was Hitler's messed up life or view of the world that made him do what he did -

This article helps us understand he was simply doing what his idol did in the nineteenth century, which he believed would regain German self respect followed by the respect of Europe if Germany again became what Kaiser Wilhelm created in Europe when the Kaiser created the 2nd Reich - with this knowledge it is easy to understand why Lindbergh saw the conflict as a European squabble.

http://ibatpv.org/projects/germany/2ndreich/index.html

[CallieOK]

Before I read "Those Angry Days", I had read "Against Wind and Tide", a memoir from Anne Morrow Lindbergh's journals, diaries and correspondence about the years 1947-1986.  I had also read "The Aviator's Wife", a fictionalized story of AML and her life with Charles.

From these two books - one the author's viewpoint based on her research and the other a non-fiction based on private writing of AML,  there is no way I can put Charles Lindbergh on a pedestal - no matter how much he may have helped the aeronautical field.

He was an egotistical, self-serving man who used his fame to say what he thought when he wanted to say it and do what he wanted when he wanted to do it - and cared not a fig for the effect his statements or actions had on those around him.  I can well understand why so many had suspicions about him during the pre WWII years.
 
There are other AML memoirs from the years 1922 - 1932 but I have been unable to find one based on the WWII years.