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

[Ella Gibbons]

DETAILED - DIFFICULT BOOK!   I know we are all interested in the subject of the pre-war WWII history, so may I make a suggestion or two.

1.  If you stick to the reading schedule in the heading, put postit tabs in parts that are new to you.   That way you can review and post on those parts quickly.

2.  Let's all try to put page numbers of the book when we post.  If we can.  Some of our comments are not relayed in the book, but we can try.

[Ella Gibbons]

PATH quoted SG Biddle   "....'If anything, [Roosevelt] thought rights should yield to the necessities of war.  Rights came after victory, not before'"

So what do we think of this, is it different?

"On this day in 2001, President Bush signed the USA Patriot Act, an anti-terrorism law drawn up in response to the attacks on the Pentagon and World Trade Center on Sept. 11, 2001.

A summary of that act which I believe is still in effect:

Opponents have cited its authorization of indefinite detentions of immigrants; "sneak and peek" searches through which law enforcement officers search a home or business without the owner’s or the occupant’s permission or knowledge; the expanded use of "National Security Letters," which allow the FBI to search telephone, e-mail, and financial records without court orders; and the expanded access of law enforcement agencies to government records, including library and personal financial records.
 
The act also expanded the definition of terrorism to include "domestic terrorism."

[Ella Gibbons]

JOANP Would you be an isolationist or an interventist? An excellent question and I don't we have answered it fully yet.  Definitely I would bean an isolationist; however I think an American President needs to tell public the HONEST, COMPLETE TRUTH.  Vietnam?  Did the public know the goal of that war?  

We are not a stupid people, but we need all the info to make a proper evaluation.  I would have to read FDR's radio addresses to understand if he told the public the truth.

I know George Bush did not when he put "boots on the ground."  

[Ella Gibbons]

ON A LIGHTER NOTE!   Listen - Vera Lynn sings - A NIGHTINGALE SANG IN BERKELEY SQUARE!  How very lovely.   She sang this song many times during WWII.  YOu will love it.   (the composer was a member of the BSC, British Security Coordination)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xTeiYN_Vq6E

[Jonathan]

Wonderful. Vera Lynn herself was Britain's nightingale in those dark years. I can also hear her singing: Wish me luck as you wave me goodbye.

Af all the troubled times to be president of the United States. FDR is always ranked very high among the great presidents. But this book also shows how controversial he was, and perhaps still is. His critics will point out that President Bush  taking the country into war in Iraq was taking a page from FDR's book on how to use the office of president.

'Trouble remembering', the detail of the debate. Me too. So many arguments. So much trouble reconciling the complexities, contradictions and perplexities of democracy in action. I agree. We should all keep that vote in mind.

A very thought-provoking post, Barb. Imagine having ones country's history burdened by a character like Hilter. A hijacker of states. Germans thought of themselves as missionarys of kultur, like America brought democracy into the world.

[PatH]

I don't see how Olson could tell the story she wants without a lot of detail.  And I'm learning a bit more about some names that were kicking around in my childhood.  So I try to remember the overall flow and the more important names.

[Jonathan]

I've got a copy of Jean Smith's FDR. Only two references to Charles Lindbergh, compared to a score or more on Missy LeHand. So who was more important to him? But allow me to quote from the book, page 437

'The battle escalated on September 15, when Charles Lindbergh, one of the country's sentimental heroes, addressed a national audience at least as large as that which had listened to FDR's fireside chat twelve days before. "This is not a question of banding together to defend the white race against foreign invasion. This is simply one of those age-old struggles within our own family of nations - a quarrel - a quarrel arising from the errors of the last war- from the failure of the victors to follow a consistent policy either of fairness or force." '

Who is the statesman here?

[PatH]

Barb, you did something I didn't expect; you actually got me to read some of Mein Kampf.  I looked at the link you posted, started reading randomly at Chapter IV, and almost immediately he is talking about how the German population needs more room for preservation and expansion, and why economic and other means aren't the right path--the only way is to acquire more land--European land.  At this point he is talking of going East toward Russia, not West.  He says that men are willing to fight to the death for preservation of their race, but not for mere economic means.

It's not as clinically insane as I assumed it would be, but it certainly isn't an easy read: convoluted, hard to follow sentences and arguments, and not very logical.  It's sort of fascinating, though.  I'll read more if I get the time.  I'd really like to know how much of his eventual program is in there.

I can't believe most people struggled through it, but surely the people in governments whose business it was to know what Germany was up to must have read it.

[bellamarie]

Oh my heavens, I am trying desperately to catch up on my reading the book chapters & the posts.  I have finally gotten through the first assigned chapters and am wondering....am I the only one here that is seeing so many similarities in this FDR second term to today's Obama's second term presidency.  I know I am fairly new to politics due to my age and timing for getting into following politics in the 70's, but seriously, I can not believe how the underhandedness, manipulation, breaking the law, using the IRS to intimidate, wire tapping individuals and the press etc., etc. was going on as far back and probably before the 1930's and remains the news of today's administration.

Holey, moley......I want to slap myself and say, wake up!!!  I also see how America and the news can be obsessed with a person one minute, and then turn on them and make their lives a living hell.  Lindberg was the man of the hour when he made his transatlantic flight, and now that he does not fall in line with FDR's agenda he is being scrutinized as a fascist, anti American and pro Nazi.  This is so very scary, knowing the power any president has over our privacy while they are trying to advance their own private agenda.  They pass laws only so they can break them or use them to further their personal advancements, regardless if it is indeed what is best for our country.

Oh Mamma Mia, I need a Valium!!   Okay, I am going to take a break, then come back and try to read through the posts to catch up.  Just needed to check in and vent a bit.

Ciao for now~

[CallieOK]

bellamarie,  ....am I the only one here that is seeing so many similarities in this FDR second term to today's Obama's second term presidency.   I thought I was!!!!!

On page xiv of the Introduction,  Olson writes:  (In 1931).....Lindbergh was the only person who could match the ....president in national popularity.  They were alike in other ways, too.  Both were strong-willed, stubborn men who believed deeply in their own superiority and had a sense of being endowed with a special purpose.  They were determined to do things their own way, ...slow to acknowledge mistakes and did not take well to criticism.  Self absorbed and emotionally detached, they insisted on being in control at all times."

(Certainly sounds like my impression of the current (Edited:) president president's temperament and personality!)

The farther I read, the more I could see how accurate these descriptions were - and why the author may have chosen to compare these two national figures in her narrative.

In this book, we're looking at attitudes and decisions (or lack thereof) leading to WWII - not the social programs initiated by Roosevelt nor the aeronautic accomplishments of Lindbergh.

[BarbStAubrey]

ah PatH that was the views for Germany long before Hitler - they wanted to get all the emigrated Germans back home and the German home was to be the lands included in the fist Reich that most define as Charlemagne's Holy Roman Empire.

We may think that is crazy but then were we in the US crazy for wanting to accumulate all the land between the oceans regardless who lived there. I think it is too easy for us to view all that proceeded WWII through the eyes of the holocaust - to separate that out seems as if we are as horrific in our thinking as those involved and yet, to understand what was important to Germany I think we have to see that they were humiliated after WWI and wanted not only economic stability and then growth but their national pride and like it or not we have to factor in the history that was paraded with standards and staffs in nearly every parade that harkened back to the Roman influence that was Charlemagne's Empire.

It was probably the same thinking we attribute to the far right who do not want to see the make up of this country change with so much non-European immigration and with the equality to whites, mostly of European decent, with not only race but gender, gays and certain religions. Many would suggest our involvement in the middle east is hubris and our relations with Central America are and were hubris - the only difference we are not after the land masses as we were in the nineteenth century. But then, we too minimized the importance and rights of the Native American just as Germany did for people other than Germans.

Not trying to justify - only I do not think it is crazy - knowing what we know and living in this country during this century we can be shocked or put ourselves in the shoes of those we are reading about and disagree but see it as behavior that led to disaster - then we can feel guilt all over again about what we did to the Native Americans  .

[PatH]

In this book, we're looking at attitudes and decisions (or lack thereof) leading to WWII - not the social programs initiated by Roosevelt nor the aeronautic accomplishments of Lindbergh.

Which means that for both men, we are leaving out their most magnificent achievement.

[HaroldArnold]

We have now finished our discussion of the first seven chapters and tomorrow  we will move on to the second week assignment that will include Chapters 8 through 14.  I was impressed at the intensity of our first week that included some 100 posts filling 2+  full discussion pages.  Good Show all of you!

Tomorrow we will move to the week 2 schedule that includes chapters 8 – 14. They discuss a number essential points some of which are hard to extract from the maize of detail included by the author.  Some of these in my opinion include in Chapter 8 the extent of British Intelligence operating in the United States and particularly in Washington and New York quite openly with the full knowledge and approval of the Roosevelt Administration.  Further the existence of the pro interventionist efforts of the New York City elitist club know as the Century Group (Chapter 10), and the discussion in Chapter 9 about the real threat that the Churchill Government would fall and a new Government probably headed by Lord Halifax who would conclude a negotiated Peace with Hitler.  These and other points of your choosing will make an Interesting week.  

[Ella Gibbons]

An aside........I am saddened that one of the nation's great newspapers has recently been sold to Amazon founder, Jeff Bezos.    The Washington Post.   Who knows what will be the future in regards to newspapers.

In the past, we have had two nonfiction discussions in regard to the Post, one was Katharine Graham's award winning book - PERSONAL HISTORY.  She and her family owned the Post.  The other book was A GOOD LIFE by Ben Bradlee, editor of the Post during the Watergate scandal.  

They can be reviewed here:

http://www.seniorlearn.org/bookclubs/archives/nonfiction/PersonalHistory.html

http://www.seniorlearn.org/bookclubs/archives/nonfiction/GoodLife.html

[bellamarie]

Ella, I can see the day newspapers and magazines are a thing of the past.  I have a subscription to Sports Illustrated, Good Housekeeping and Ladies Home Journal and they have more pages of ads then information and are half the size of pages than what they used to be.  I'm surprised they are still in business.  I don't even have a subscription to our local newspaper.  I can so easily read any part of any newspaper on-line and not have the mess of papers laying around my house needing to be recycled.  

[PatH]

I said this already in The Library:

The Graham dynasty bought the Washington Post the year I was born, and made it the quality newspaper I've read all my life.  Signs of trouble have abounded in recent years: downsizing, staff buyouts, a larger and larger fraction of the paper only appearing online, etc.  Sometimes I feel like I'm only getting half what I paid for in my print edition.

But it's shocking to think of it being sold, and losing the family dedication to, and love of, the newspaper.

What will happen now?  Bezos bought the paper with his own money, and the price is small compared to his worth.  He is not obligated to anyone to show a profit, and he is a person with a lot of patience, willing to run something for long-term goals, not worrying about this month's profits.  So he can make what he chooses of the paper, and I can only hope that his goals overlap what I want in a newspaper.  I especially hope he doesn't skimp the investigative journalism.  This is getting cut everywhere, and it's an important safeguard for our freedom--the knowledge that someone will probably uncover your dirty tricks if you try any.  I hope he keeps up the quality of the paper, doesn't use it too much to support his own views, whatever they are, and doesn't transfer too much of it online.

I wait with trepidation.

[PatH]

Politics and Prose has weighed in about the purchase of the Washington Post, and they aren't hopeful:

http://www.politics-prose.com/

[HaroldArnold]

Regarding newspapers I expect that most of the large city newspapers will survive but probably not in the traditional print form.  This expectation is based on my experience reading the digital Wall Street Journal over the last several years from a computer, or best from a tablet preferably with a 10 inch screen (I pad, android or other Os). This method allows  the reader to select the best type size for him.  The reader has full control scanning the issue section by section, article by article, reading what he chooses, saving what he chooses.   Gone is the mess of waste paper, and the hassle for suitable lighting and reading position.  With the WSJ back issues are available for 2 weeks.   I intend to subscribe to the local San Antonio Express in this form when my current print issue runs out.  

Regarding the "Good life," by Ben Bradley,  That was the first book that Ella and I worked together as co DL's.  It must have been back in the late 1990's.  We have probably done near 15 book discussions since then.  

[Ella Gibbons]

Chapter Eight - THE ART OF MANIPULATION - recounts all the "dirty tricks" used by different organizations (particularly the BSC) to influence Americans - push them into war.  With the knowledge of FDR and J. Edgar Hoover,  propaganda was planted in  newspapaers.  The coluumnists who helped, who believed in the cause are such  familiar names - Drew Pearson, Walter Lippmann, Walter Winchell, Dorothy Thompson.  (p.120)

This opened my eyes:  "Although the opening of others' mail was illegal under U.S. law, the FBI, following British instructions in the technique, ,,,,,,,,examined correspondence .........the policy of opening mail for supposed national security purposes continued until 1966...... (pg. 119)

Now that is OUTRAGEOUS!!!

Dirty tricks have been around a long, long time and continues I'm sure.  By governments, by individuals and the like.

Do you think there are dirty tricks on the Internet?   Have you uncovered any?  Rumors, gossip about national affairs, government officials?  Are Americans aware of dirty tricks in the past and attempt to look at news warily?  LOok at both sides of an issue?

[Ella Gibbons]

It was a good book wasn't it HAROLD and it was the first book we DL'd and we almost got Ben Bradlee online for an interview and although he tried, he didn't know how to use a computer. 

I Like that big, black type you have, so easy to read.  We can't get that on our pc can we?   You are using a Kindle?

How many of you  have Kindle's or similar?

[Ella Gibbons]

DIRTY TRICKS:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dirty_tricks

Note what Thomas Jefferson did- politicians will try anything, it seems, to win.  

[HaroldArnold]

I’ll begin this week’s discussion with comment on Chapter 8. That concerns the extent of the British diplomatic mission in 1939 Washington DC.  In addition to the conventional Embassy conducting regular embassy diplomatic functions there was another super corporate agency with a mission that turned out to be considerably broader.  This group headed by a Canadian named William Stephenson, was much broader.  Over its first 18 months, in the words of our Author “it would declare war on Britain’s enemy in the U.S. whether German, Italian, Vichy French or American Isolationist’s.”  This mission would do whatever was necessary to silence American Isolationist groups and bring the U.S. into the war.   This mission at its peak employed over 1000 mostly British andr Canadians.  It went about its task with the full knowledge and support of President Roosevelt and the FBI and its head J. Edger Hoover.    

I see this as an early indication that Roosevelt early on realized the danger posed by Hitler and his Nazi government, but politician that he was and knowing the 1939-40 isolationist mode of the Country, he made no effort to curb these   operations.

[BarbStAubrey]

Ella, Dirty Tricks reminds me of the new book Disinformation By Lt. Gen. Ion Mihai Pacepa and Prof. Ronald J. Rychlak - the book revels the secret strategy for undermining freedom, attacking religion and promoting terrorism. The lies that were put out by this secret branch of the Russian Government are beyond anything i could imagine and we bought the lies hook line and sinker - Often they were not directly put in publication where it was ultimately expected to do the most harm but by way of world wide connections the lie worked itself to where the damage was aimed. These outrageous lies are in our belief system to this day.

So far I have only read the sample provided to Kindle owners and have not yet purchased the book but as you know the samples on Kindle generous. One of the amazing things to learn is that Glasnost is an old, if not ancient word in Russian and has a different meaning to Russians than to us - we were hooked in thinking Gorbachev was not a prelude to Putin. The way they blackened the reputation of Pope Pius XII about his so called blind eyes to the Jews during WWII is astonishing and even I still believed that lie today.

And now with this revelation by Lynne Olsen's research you have to wonder if we are any better than the serfs during the Middle Ages who simply did the bidding of their masters.  

[JoanP]

I don't see how Olson could tell the story she wants without a lot of detail.  And I'm learning a bit more about some names that were kicking around in my childhood. PatH

Oh I agree, Pat.  I'm enjoying the names, too - those that I recognize.  Stirring some memories.  Some of them I remember AFTER the war.  They kept on going for many years afterwards.   Do you remember the National Book Festival you and I attended on the mall in DC? - we listened to an author, who spoke of Frances Perkins.  Can you fill in the blanks?  Who was that author, what was the book we were discussing here that brought us to DC to listen to this author?  I enjoyed seeing meeting her in this book - the Labor Secretary at this time, who remembered  poor Henry Wallace getting booed...I think I'm getting ahead...to chapter 13.

[JoanP]

I wish I was as optimistic as some, regarding the future of the Washington Post under Jeff Beznos.  Too cynical for that...guess I am more in agreement with Polictics and Prose.  A funny coincidence to open to Chapter 8 this morning and see David Ignatius quoted (p116) describing in the Washington Post, the British emissary, William Stephenson's (think James Bond), activities in the US as "a virtual textbook in the art of manipulation."
I really think news and how we regard - investigative reporting will change tremendously if/when we convert to digital sites all over the Internet. Does that concern anyone else?

[JoanP]

Yes, yes, yes...dirty tricks throughout history, Ella, but  somehow I feel let down by the President, who gave the appearance of staying neutral, waiting for the American people to weigh in with their opinions before he would act.   But as Harold says, "British intelligence was operating in the US openly, with the knowledge and approval of the administration."  William Stephenson was sent from London to gather information on Britain's "enemies".., which included all isolationists.  So, if you spoke out against entering the war, in any capacity, you were regarded as the "enemy" - not only in Britain's eyes, but also in your President's.

[PatH]

JoanP,  the author you're thinking of is Kirstin Downey, and the book is The Woman Behind the New Deal--a really good book.  She was very gracious to us, and although she was moving and traveling a lot at the time, answered some questions as our discussion went on.

[bellamarie]

Yes, Joan, that book was about Francis Perkins.  She had a hand in getting the New Deal passed.  A lot of shenanigans were pulled between her manipulating the press and FDR having his second bill hidden away in the desk, expecting the first one not to go through. 

Oh dear more underhanded, law breaking, and total disregard for constitutional and civil rights trampled on, all through chapter 8.  It really does make me realize how this country and others have been as bad as this and worse I suspect through out all of history.  I seriously don't think there is one president that held office who did not have dirty hands vying for power and political popularity among Americans and other countries. 

I get the feeling FDR all along intended to enter the war, he just had to wait until he was comfortable he had the will of the people and the proper weaponry. 

[PatH]

Yes, FDR definitely saw the danger and evil of Hitler, and felt we would at least have to provide heavy support to those fighting him, and probably have to join the fight.  I wonder, given the isolationist mood of the country, how should he have handled this?

[HaroldArnold]

Three or four years ago Ella an I led discussion of her Biography, "The Woman Behind the New Deal", by Kristin Cowney.  I certainly remember this book and though I have forgotten many of the small print details I certainly remember well the major pattern of her administration and the then prevailing pattern of the Roosevelt administration. The sub title of this book was "The Woman behind the New Deal.  She deserves much credit for many of the landmark achievements of the first two terms of the Roosevelt administration including Social Security, and Workman's  Compensation.  Also I remember from this book an account of the informality and confusion regarding inauguration of the new President and his cabinet.  For example the New secretary was unknown at the Labor Depth Office when she arrived at her office the next morning. 

[HaroldArnold]

I remember quite well the deal with England that sent 50 WWI Destroyers it England.  The deal is covered in several chapters of this Week's assignment.  It did not come easy.  The problem was that Roosevelt wanted to attach it to provisions that would assure that the Royal Navy ships would be sent to Canada in the event England had to make peace.  Also Isolationist felt the U.S. might need these ships if an English peace treaty. 

Finally a deal was concluded transferring the 50 destroyers to the Royal Navy in exchange for U.S. Naval Bases on several British Islands in the Gulf of Mexico.  These 50 old ships were used by Britain in their anti Submarine battle an the North Atlantic where they proved valuable despite their age and poor seaworthiness.  Several were credited with sinking German submarines, and all participated Convey duty attacking Submarines keeping them deep and rescuing survivors of torpedoed ships.

I suppose the U.S. still operates the bases granted by that treaty.

[HaroldArnold]

Regarding Pat's question, I wonder, given the isolationist mood of the country, how should he have handled this?  Perhaps considering the extreme isolationist mood of the Country F.D. R. didn't do bad in handling the situation as it existed at the time in 1940 after the surrender of France with England besieged alone in its island bastion.  What F.D.R. did I'll call "playing it by ear."  That is he did what he though he could get away with, without upsetting the Isolationist majority too much.  As time passed as the evil of Hitler's Nazi government became more apparent and England's impressive defense continued, he found he could do more, until by the summer of 1941 he had the U.S. Navy involved in convey duty combat in the Atlantic west of Iceland.  

Yes I too believe F.D.R. believed from early on that the U.S. would end up as a belligerent.  As a politician He knew in 1940 that the Isolationist American public would not accept American combat at that time.  The truth is that the great change in public opinion in just one year is really remarkable and the U.S Navy was engaged in actual combat conveying ship through the western Atlantic.

[JoanP]

Thanks...yes, Kirstin Downey's book on Frances Perkins and the New Deal...now I remember.  Which brings up the subject of the New Deal again.  Is the New Deal Roosevelt's primary accomplishment - for which he will be remembered?  Does anyone remember Ms. Perkins?  As I read of the President's reticense, his hesitation in taking any position that might be unpopular, I wonder if this wasn't his style of leadership from the start.  Didn't he push Frances Perkins before the public with what he knew would be unpopular proposals and let her face the music alone?

[JoanP]

Who can listen to Winston Churchill's  oft repeated "We shall never surrender"  speech without getting goosebumps?  I still do.  Rather crushing to think that he didn't believe it at the time, because he didn't have the means to fight the German army, ten times what Britain had.  After he conveyed this to FDR, the Presidnet made an inspired speech at the U. of Virginia...promising to provide whatever it would take to assure Britain's survival, he did nothing.  He knew he had nothing to provide.  There were no propsals before Congress...

"considering the extreme isolationist mood of the country..."

Harold, when did this turn around - the great change in public opinion in just one year is really remarkable"  When Paris fall to Germany?  Is this event what it took to rouse American public opinion?  I felt so sorry for Anne Linbergh, caught between her mother's and her husband's belief in American aid to Britain.  Where did that leave Anne when the interventionists claimed - "anyone who opposed the war was an imbecile or a traitor?"  Perhaps this difference of viewpoint, within families was typical?  Does anyone remember this argument around the dinner table at the time?  

[Ella Gibbons]

JOANP, I get the same chills just I read Churchill's "We shall fight..................................." speech.  What a great leader Britain had in the man.  If they had retained someone like Chamberlain, all of us today might be living in a different world.  Just think for a moment if Hitler had won all of Europe, N. Africa, etc.  where would he go next?   You got it!  With Britain's navy and subs he would be over here in no time and we were not prepared for it.

We all have Churchill to thank (my opinion).  He and FDR, who might seem weak and dependent upon public opinion in these chapters, but got America up  and ready to fight in no time when we were attacked.

HAROLD is the better historian.  But I think all through the last few centuries England was noted for her Royal Navy so it is almost laughable that FDR proposed that England send her navy to Canada or the USA for safekeeping.  Really!   (pg. 127)

JOAN, I don't remember much about the years before the war or any arguments then.   As the book states - "Most people in the United States had little knowledge of the countries previously vanquished by Germany." (pg.130)   We knew no one that had ever been overseas nor did we have an idea of the countries involved.   We did look at maps and globes after we were in the war, but remember we had just recovered from surviving the depression.

As for Anne Lindbergh, I, too, have sympathy; but today's women would have found a way to address their own opinion on such weighty matters, don't you think?  Friends, letters, something!

This whole chapter - CHAPTER 9 - asks the question:

IS THIS WAR OUR CONCERN?   Don't we all ask the same question today?

[BarbStAubrey]

Well I am breaking down and getting this on my kindle - it is too good to pass and the library says I am now moved to 3rd from 5th on the reserve list - with the electric bill out of the wazoos this month I can afford this like a hole in the head but I will conserve in another way.

[PatH]

Barb, I'm grateful for your sacrifice.  I think you won't regret it; there's so much good stuff in this book, so many details.  I want to know your thoughts after reading it.

Ella:

But I think all through the last few centuries England was noted for her Royal Navy so it is almost laughable that FDR proposed that England send her navy to Canada or the USA for safekeeping.  Really!

Indeed, the British attitude towards seafaring is almost mystical.  Go back to Francis Drake and Nelson, or if you really want to dig, go  back to the Old English poem The Seafarer, in which the speaker , although he ends up describing the importance and comfort of faith and the afterlife, really just wants to be back on the ocean, freezing his tail off, and risking death in horrible gales.  Of course every boat in reach would zoom over to Dunkirk to help take off the troops.  And of course no one would even consider sending off their ships to some other country.

[Ella Gibbons]

Good, BARBARA, that way you can follow along with us, chapter by chapter, section by section (see schedule in heading).

FDR was Secretary of the Navy at one time so I'm sure he knew the pride of England in its Royal Navy history, don't you, PAT?  Dunkirk, what a gallant effort and how brave the English people were to carry on in the middle of the blitzkreig while we remained safe on this side of the Atlantic but the war was not our concern

General George Marshall (who will always be remembered for the Marshall Plan after the war) were opposed to sending any of our small number of weapons to Britain because we needed to build up a force here at home.

What a dilemma FDR found himself in - so many views coming at him from all sides and from people he respected.  I would have lost my mind.

Speaking of English ships, it has always been a dream of mine to go across the Atlantic on a Queen Elizabeth cruise ship, but I think I would be bored after a day and night of it.  I was bored flying over the seas which took much less time.   And I have no formal clothes at all.

[BarbStAubrey]

What I hate about using the kindle version of a book to discuss is there are NO PAGE NUMBERS - at location 200 - whatever that means - to respond if Roosevelt wanted war -

It appears it is not war with boots on the ground that Roosevelt wants but arms to support England - It says "And it is far from clear that Roosevelt himself, while certainly determined to help Britain, ever intended that America go to war, at least in the sense of sending troops. Indeed, there is ample evidence, as the historians William Langer and S. Everett Gleason noted, that the president "recoiled from the prospect of war, was determined to spare no effort to keep this nation out if it, and devoutly hoped that, by one means or another, he would succeed."

My take is - Lindbergh was not a down and out isolationist - everything to him is about flying - He knows what plans can do and what will work in the air - he was right about the Air Force not able to successfully deliver the mail  - he may have known how politics works but he was not a politician - I bet he simply continued to believe he knew more about what could happen in the sky than he thought Roosevelt knew.

I think he was a very pragmatic man. After viewing the strength of Hitler's air-force I think he thought his brother-in-law was foolish and the whole thing about going after Hitler and expecting to win was foolish so why spend your last breath and dime on a loosing proposition.

The first thing he does upon returning to America is to join General Arnold in an effort to build up our airpower - I think he saw we had no hope any longer of winning a war on the ground and he knew we were not ready - I am thinking Lindbergh and Arnold thought all the limited resources we have should be used to build up our own defense - We know from the book that General Arnold was protective of our few resources not wanting them to go to the British.

Except for the fever of the country where you were caste on one side or the other it sounds like Lindbergh had good intentions to protect American even if at the cost of throwing Britian under the bus and Roosevelt was not a gung ho protector of Britain - he thought by helping with arms would be enough.