The History Book Club discussion
This topic is about
Roosevelt's Centurions
PRESIDENTIAL SERIES
>
2. ROOSEVELT'S CENTURIONS - CHAPTER TWO - (p. 27 - 54) ~ JUNE 10TH - JUNE 16TH; No Spoilers, Please
Chapter Overview and SummaryChapter Two - An End of Neutrality. p. 27 - 54
The reasons for entering World War I become a public issue as soon as the war ends. Congress passes neutrality acts requiring limitation on arms exports and the materials to build them, including oil. Japan initiates aggression into China. Britain, France, Italy, and Germany divide up Czechoslovakia "like a chicken on a plate." (p. 29) The WPA is awarded work projects building ships and munitions.
FDR appeals to Hitler for peace. Neville Chamberlain had given Germany an ultimatum to withdraw from Poland, which was refused by Hitler. The American people are now 62% in favor of supporting England and France as long as direct involvement is not required by the US. FDR proposes easing neutrality laws to allow the Allies to purchase munitions as long as they transported them on their own. It gives rise to a policy of cash and carry.
After Poland's defeat by Germany there remains an uneasy calm in Europe, a time described as The Phony War. In short succession in 1940 Hitler invades Denmark, Belgium, the Netherlands, and Luxembourg.
In a surprise move, FDR calls for an 18M budget cut to the military. Marshall consults with Morgenthau, and together they meet with the President. Marshall imposes on FDR and the President later signs an appropriation for twice the amount of increase Marshall originally requested.
Chamberlain resigns amid opposition from Parliament and Churchill is appointed. He urges FDR to get involved in the growing threat from Germany in Europe. FDR pushes for more munitions sales.
Mussolini declares war on France. FDR delivers a graduation speech at the University of Virginia denouncing Mussolini's actions. France please for aid from the U.S, and ultimately lose to Germany which is now poised to cross the English channel. FDR tries unsuccessfully to go around congress to provide arms to Britain. He raises the idea of swapping destroyers for land. The Attorney General advises FDR he has undefined powers as Commander in Chief and he can use his constitutional authority, enabling the destroyer deal to go through. Churchill is thrilled, and it increases Hitler's resolve to strike Britain.
FDR finds another loophole in the neutrality laws and sends 15 B-17s to Britain under the guise of combat testing. Wanting to send more, he comes up with the idea that Britain would pay back the US in kind after the war. Lend-Lease was born. The military team also mulls other options including military escorts of merchant ships sailing the north Atlantic. FDR airs his first fireside chat to garner public support for aiding Britain. He starts his third term in office.
FDR appeals to Congress for naval appropriations. Both oceans needed protecting. Military strategists warned of vulnerability at Pearl Harbor, but the fear of Germany advancing into the Atlantic was strong, and there was subsequent fear that Germany would attack Latin America. Protecting the Atlantic took precedence after France surrenders to Germany. Plan Dog is developed, defining the strategy of offense in the Atlantic and defense in the Pacific. FDR sends ships from the Pacific to the Atlantic after merchant ships are downed off Iceland. FDR draws a line from Greenland to brazil and proposes patrols to protect ships and defend what he has defined as the western hemisphere.
The German Bismarck attacks and sinks the HMS Hood. Britain counterattacks and sinks the Bismarck before FDR could hatch a plan to attack it via submarine.
FDR gives a speech to a gathering of Latin American ambassadors and it is broadcast on the radio. He suggests the country faces 'an unlimited national emergency' (p.53) from Nazi aggression in their plan for world domination. FDR's office is flooded with telegrams of support for his speech.
In June 1941, an American freighter bound for east Africa is downed by a German submarine. FDR decries the sinking of the ship, ousts the German consular, and demands compensation for the sinking. He still wants to support Britain in their effort to hold out against Germany.
"Long before, as a candidate for the presidency in 1932, FDR had defined his concept of leadership in a speech to the San Francisco Commonwealth Club. "Government includes the art of formulating a policy, and using the political technique to attain so much of that policy as will receive general support: . . . the greatest duty of a statesman is to educate," he said. Lend-Lease was the concrete expression of the president's philosophy at its apogee, a bold burst of imagination that would change history." (p. 47) How does this fit with the role of Commander in Chief during war time? Does it change your view of FDR as a leader?
I think it fits in well. Wilson was the same way, but his biggest downfall, he didn't do enough "public education" at the crucial time in 1917 & 1918, then he had the stroke. A president needs to reach the public or run the risk of isolation, then policy failure...well, then get voted out.
Yes, I agree. so far in my reading I have realized that I don't know very much about FDR, but the lend-lease shows me he's a little more devious than I would have credited him. he was very much looking for a way into the war and was utilizing loop holes frequently I guess as an unofficial starting point until the time was right to go all in. he had more of a hand in shaping the war in 1940 and 41 than I realized.
Bryan wrote: "I think it fits in well. Wilson was the same way, but his biggest downfall, he didn't do enough "public education" at the crucial time in 1917 & 1918, then he had the stroke. A president needs to..."Except that we have never voted out a POTUS during a major war:
War of 1812 - Madison re-elected in 1812
Civil War - Lincoln re-elected in 1864
WW I - Wilson re-elected
WW II - FDR reelected 1940 and 44
Korean war - Truman could not run for a 3rd term
Vietnam war - JFK was killed; LBJ didn't run for a second term, Nixon was re-elected.
Indeed, Peter, war becomes a defining campaign issue.
One thing that struck me while reading this chapter is that (see p. 44) 60% of all Americans listened to FDR's fireside chat on Dec 29, 1940. What proportion of people listen to presidential speeches these days?
Theresa wrote: "Yes, I agree. so far in my reading I have realized that I don't know very much about FDR, but the lend-lease shows me he's a little more devious than I would have credited him. he was very much loo..."He is a more creative thinker than I had given him credit for previously. Lend-Lease is a good example. He also seemed to find ways to do an end around on the neturality laws wherever possible.
Peter wrote: "One thing that struck me while reading this chapter is that (see p. 44) 60% of all Americans listened to FDR's fireside chat on Dec 29, 1940. What proportion of people listen to presidential spee..."
I wondered if some of that was the novelty of people listening to the radio. It must have seemed like a device that delivered information remarkably fast compared to newspapers. I would think because there were fewer outlets for dispensing information that more people would avail themselves of the media.
Alisa wrote: ""Long before, as a candidate for the presidency in 1932, FDR had defined his concept of leadership in a speech to the San Francisco Commonwealth Club. "Government includes the art of formulating a..."I see FDR's attainment of lend lease as a style of political leadership. Establish an "end" and create a "means" to that end. If you have to skirt the rules, embellish a fact or omit a fact, then so be it. If you succeed then polish your style and proceed to the next end. Of course you may become heady with your success and believe the Supreme Court is missing a few extra judges and decide the means is to add additional judges until you succeed in your "end."
This is opposite Churchill who just said it as it was...
"We shall go on to the end. We shall fight in France, we shall fight on the seas and oceans, we shall fight with growing confidence and growing strength in the air, we shall defend our island, whatever the cost may be. We shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender.."
Jim wrote: "Alisa wrote: ""Long before, as a candidate for the presidency in 1932, FDR had defined his concept of leadership in a speech to the San Francisco Commonwealth Club. "Government includes the art of..."How he went about Lend-Lease was indicative of his style, to be sure. For as many advisors as he had around him I am sometimes a little surprised that they seem to think his ideas came out of thin air.
Churchill had a very different style. Do you think he had a different type of sales job to do with the English people given the position that Britain was in at the time?
The coming chapters will probably help me with this response but I see FDR as a political animal first and a commander in chief of the military second. I see Churchill as the opposite.
I think Churchill, one of my heroes, who had some actual combat experience, felt he was qualified to "meddle" in military situations and certainly did. I think he did see himself as a commander in chief primarily. Plus he was a very different personality from FDR....although both could be charming and persuasive, Churchill was a stubborn "bulldog" and was not averse to removing military staff when he felt it was needed.
message 15:
by
Bentley, Group Founder, Leader, Chief
(last edited Jun 10, 2013 11:00PM)
(new)
-
rated it 4 stars
Mod
FDR seemed to be a bit of a machiavellian in some of his decisions and his approaches to leadership. Churchill was all for Britain, was bombastic, rude, arrogant, intemperate and many other things but he was not a coward and worked hard to save his country while honoring his commitments. At times I think he felt a bit played by FDR's approach yet he could not bite the hand that fed him his armaments and supplies.
Bentley wrote: "Jim wrote: "The coming chapters will probably help me with this response but I see FDR as a political animal first and a commander in chief of the military second. I see Churchill as the opposite."..."I agree, it must have been hard for Churchill to play the "hat in hand" role when he went off to visit FDR. When the book gets to Yalta I suspect we can add to this thread.
Mod
Very different approaches, indeed. I remember Churchill's military leaders getting very frustrated with Churchill as he intervened.Then you have Marshall coming to Morgenthau to get advice on how get more money from FDR and Marshall had to stand up for himself to ask and he got it. I picture Churchill and his commanders in more of a direct manner a lot of the time.
Bryan wrote: "Very different approaches, indeed. I remember Churchill's military leaders getting very frustrated with Churchill as he intervened.Then you have Marshall coming to Morgenthau to get advice on ho..."
Marshall going to Morgenthau surprised me a little in that Marshall seemed so willing to stand up to FDR that I was not expecting him to need Morgenthau. Strength in numbers perhaps, and it still is somewhat early in the Marshall-FDR relationship at this point. Maybe Marshall wanted the assurance before approaching FDR on the question.
I agree, Alisa, I think he really was new and needed some advice. He probably had reverence for the president's office not to speak up like that and needed to check in with someone.
Bryan wrote: "I agree, Alisa, I think he really was new and needed some advice. He probably had reverence for the president's office not to speak up like that and needed to check in with someone."But when he decided to exercise some influence he held back nothing! The visual of Marshall literally leaning over the President is quite an image. Gotta admire his hutzpah.
I felt the same way when I read this passage. I wonder if FDR was surprised.
Alisa wrote: "Bryan wrote: "I agree, Alisa, I think he really was new and needed some advice. He probably had reverence for the president's office not to speak up like that and needed to check in with someone."..."Marshall did have a direct approach when needed. My son used to work in the GC Marshall library in Lexington, Va. and on a visit we were invited to the inner library to view a letter Marshall had written Ike. In a very short paragraph he in so many words told Ike to cut loose his driver (Kate?).
Interesting, Jim, to see something in writing.
Bryan wrote: "I felt the same way when I read this passage. I wonder if FDR was surprised."Well, whatever his reaction it worked. Marshall got what he wanted, and more. Maybe FDR was a little intimidated. Hard to imagine.
In the past year I have read two books about FDR not including this one, and several prior to that. One common thread is his quixotic behavior. I loved the Whitman quote on page 34 of the hardcover. It so perfectly describes FDR. Such inconsistency! First he takes money away from the military and then he pushes Cash and Carry via Morganthau. I also felt the phrase 'verbal smoke screen' on page 33 was very apt.However, I learn something new about him with each book. The fact that he invited the press to discuss how to come to Britain's aid was a political master stroke.
Sadly, his term 'arsenal of democracy' while heart thumping at the time has had unfortunate repercussions which have plagued us to this very day.
I get the impression that the author is trying to make us think that Roosevelt was a bit disorganized in his daily habits and the way he handled issues. I for one think that he was so brilliant that what others saw as unorganized or chaotic thinking was in reality the ability to look at a problem and solve it almost immediately alone the lines that he saw as most expedient. If anything I believe he was a bit devious in his around about ways of getting people to go along with him and at the same time be extremely motivated to get the job done. His use of swapping destroyers for bases, the lend lease agreements and his getting the general public behind these vital plans to save England show not only brilliance at undermining the isolationist but got the American people behind him at the same time. His waiting patiently for the Germans or Japanese to make a slip while preparing the nation for war are astounding in audacity. His relationship with Churchill is another sign of how he understood that the true threat to us was from Hitler and not Japan. The Atlantic first policy and the call for a two seas naval force shows his mind set for bringing the US into the 20th century as a world power.
Actually, based on a number of anecdotes, I think FDR spent time cogitating before making a 'suggestion'. On page 42 of the hard cover, Persico mentions Hopkins seeing FDR "sitting in a deck chair...reading and rereading Churchill's letter over the course of two days". And after several more days, on the trip home, he had fleshed out an idea and presented it to Morganthau. No less brilliant. No less amazing. No less politically astute, but still, it took some time for him to get the politically correct strategy together. In my opinion, the man was a genius. I don't always agree with his methods or his plan, but you are right, he was brilliant.
G wrote: "In the past year I have read two books about FDR not including this one, and several prior to that. One common thread is his quixotic behavior. I loved the Whitman quote on page 34 of the hardcover..."I view his inviting the press as another politically motivated move and speaks to his ability to use the press very effectively.
Clayton wrote: "I get the impression that the author is trying to make us think that Roosevelt was a bit disorganized in his daily habits and the way he handled issues. I for one think that he was so brilliant tha..."He was savvy and knew how to manipulate others. I do wonder if his disorganized ways were intentional to throw people off his path - it is a good way of keeping people at arms length - or maybe he was just haphazard in personal habit but kept it all organized in his mind. The combination of these seemingly disparate traits lends itself to an intriguing speculation about how he could be a worthy strategist, which he proved to be with Lend-Lease and Cash and Carry. Both are enterprising plans, and would bring a public weary of depression era life to supporting a president who was doing everything he could to protect the country without spending money or lives.
G wrote: "Actually, based on a number of anecdotes, I think FDR spent time cogitating before making a 'suggestion'. On page 42 of the hard cover, Persico mentions Hopkins seeing FDR "sitting in a deck chair...."Good point, we don't see much of his private thinking that leads up to the rollout of his big ideas. You have to believe there was a process behind it all.
Alisa wrote: "Clayton wrote: "I get the impression that the author is trying to make us think that Roosevelt was a bit disorganized in his daily habits and the way he handled issues. I for one think that he was ..."Your comment about his ability to manipulate others... I know this is jumping ahead but let's revisit this ability later in the book when he has to deal with "Uncle Joe".
Jim, everybody has someone who is like a thorn in their side. :-O We're bound to see it.
Not to jump ahead but what I really look forward to reading about is the handling of Vinegar Joe and Peanut.
Clayton wrote: "Not to jump ahead but what I really look forward to reading about is the handling of Vinegar Joe and Peanut."You will like it, Clayton.
Did FDR assume that the U.S. would need to enter WWII, and that Britain would not be able to defeat the sweeping advance of Hitler's army across Europe? "FDR soon embarked on his next step in shredding neutrality just short of war" (p. 52) The speech to the Latin American ambassadors which was boradcast to some 65 million Americans proclaimed "Some people might wish to think we had not been attacked until bombs fell on New York or San Francisco . . . But if you hold your fire until you see the whites of their eyes, you will never know what hit you." Who was that statement intended for? Was it a warning to Latin America that they could see aggression come to their shores (a concern of FDR's.) Was he talking to the American people to urge their thinking about supporting direct involvement? Do you think he thought peace was possible at this point?
Alisa wrote: "Did FDR assume that the U.S. would need to enter WWII, and that Britain would not be able to defeat the sweeping advance of Hitler's army across Europe? "FDR soon embarked on his next step in shre..."At this point I think he did think the US would enter the war, and I don't believe he thought peace was possible. With all the outrage from Hitler because of the support we were giving Britain, I think FDR saw it as inevitable. I think his comment about South America was more of a warning to the US that if we thought we were safe because of the oceans between us and the Axis powers, we were wrong.
I think Roosevelt took the opportunity of the speech to the Latin American ambassadors, to speak to the American people about the fragility of neutrality and the distinct possibility of our involvement militarily. I can't imagine that he thought peace was possible....England would not go down easily, if at all and if she did fall, it might just provide Hitler the stepping stone and the impetus to attack the US. If Hitler conquered Britain, that would mean that the US would have to seek some type of "understanding" or even treaty with Nazi Germany or go to war. We will never know how it would have played out since other incidents forced our hand but I don't believe that FDR would have maintained neutrality for much longer. Just my opinion, of course.
Jill wrote: "I think Roosevelt took the opportunity of the speech to the Latin American ambassadors, to speak to the American people about the fragility of neutrality and the distinct possibility of our involve..."It really seemed like he was baiting Nazi Germany in this speech. Maybe just posturing, but it seemed so aggressive. I wondered if he realistically expected Britain to hold them off.
FDR does act boldly, pushing this neutrality envelope. I really liked the story that he drew a line on the Atlantic Ocean atlas and we were now protecting Greenland and Iceland. I never knew that.
On page 39, FDR approaches his Attorney General Robert Jackson to find a legal rationale to justify sending planes to Britain. Jackson finds a justification which leans on language which seems to lay open a good deal of latitude for FDR to pursue his immediate plans. What is the appropriate role for the US Attorney? Is it to justify what a President wants to do as long as it falls within legal/constitutional boundaries?
Bryan wrote: "FDR does act boldly, pushing this neutrality envelope. I really liked the story that he drew a line on the Atlantic Ocean atlas and we were now protecting Greenland and Iceland. I never knew that."He just came up with his own map! Crafty. I am developing a view of FDR that is one of a very enterprising thinker.
Alisa wrote: "On page 39, FDR approaches his Attorney General Robert Jackson to find a legal rationale to justify sending planes to Britain. Jackson finds a justification which leans on language which seems to..."That is a bit of a circular question....I feel that the job of the AG is to determine the legality of an action of the POTUS. If the requested action falls within the guidelines of constitution/law, then justification is implied, regardless of the fine line the AG may walk in his interpretation of the law. I think it may be common practice for AGs to find some pretty obscure loopholes when a question arises
Yes, but that is not at all what happened here. It is probably expected that a President is seeking to justify his position but shouldn't the AG be there to do more than determine if what the President wants to do is legal? You can find almost any argument to make your case. I think the AG has a duty to protect the American people. Presidents now have separate White House Counsel who advise them the way Jackson did, and I wonder if Jackson's role, or at least the part that he played for FDR, was an evolution of that. Doesn't there need to be some independence in the process?
Mod
Alisa wrote: "...What is the appropriate role for the US Attorney? Is it to justify what a President wants to do as long as it falls within legal/constitutional boundaries?" [and elsewhere] "I am developing a view of FDR that is one of a very enterprising thinker."I am left wondering what was going through Marshall's mind as FDR was forever stretching the envelope of his constitutional limitations in an effort to get around the will of an isolationist Congress and American electorate in his bid to save the European democracies from the impending shadow of Nazi Germany.
Was part of Marshall cheering FDR on while another part of him was feeling, "For God sakes, man, give us the money and the time to build up our armed forces so we can take on Germany!"?
I think it depends on the relationship between the AG and the President. Clearly, RFK did everything within his power to keep JFK legally safe. I don't believe he would have done the same for Johnson. Jackson was doing what Roosevelt wanted, and I get the impression he had no problem with that.
I understand your thoughts, Alisa, but I think the AG is there more to protect the President than the American people whether that is the true role or not. Since he is appointed by the President and not elected, I think, in truth, his role is understood by the appointee. Maybe I am just cynical
Steven, right?! You have to think Marshall was very frustrated. The aberrant decision making to a plain speaking and direct Marshall must have been somewhat befuddling. Natural for a General to want to go to war, but most of all he probably just wants to lead.
G wrote: "I think it depends on the relationship between the AG and the President. Clearly, RFK did everything within his power to keep JFK legally safe. I don't believe he would have done the same for Johns..."I think the interpersonal relationship between the two plays a part. I just wonder if the proper role of an AG should be more independent.
For the week of June 10, 2013 - June 16, 2013, we are reading Chapter Two of Roosevelt's Centurions: FDR & the Commanders He Led to Victory in World War II.
This week's reading assignment is:
Week Two - June 10th - June 16th -> Chapter TWO, p. 27 - 54
TWO - An End of Neutrality
We will open up a thread for each week's reading. Please make sure to post in the particular thread dedicated to those specific chapters and page numbers to avoid spoilers. We will also open up supplemental threads as we did for other spotlighted books.
This book is being kicked off on May 28th (the day the book is released officially). We look forward to your participation. Amazon, Barnes and Noble, Borders and other noted on line booksellers do have copies of the book and shipment can be expedited. The book can also be obtained easily at your local library, or on your Kindle. Make sure to pre-order now if you haven't already. This weekly thread will be opened up on June 10th. We offer a special thank you to Random House for their generosity.
There is no rush and we are thrilled to have you join us. It is never too late to get started and/or to post.
Alisa will be leading this discussion.
Welcome,
~ Alisa
TO ALWAYS SEE ALL WEEKS' THREADS SELECT VIEW ALL
REMEMBER NO SPOILERS ON THE WEEKLY NON SPOILER THREADS - ON EACH WEEKLY NON SPOILER THREAD - WE ONLY DISCUSS THE PAGES ASSIGNED OR THE PAGES WHICH WERE COVERED IN PREVIOUS WEEKS. IF YOU GO AHEAD OR WANT TO ENGAGE IN MORE EXPANSIVE DISCUSSION - POST THOSE COMMENTS IN ONE OF THE SPOILER THREADS. THESE CHAPTERS HAVE A LOT OF INFORMATION SO WHEN IN DOUBT CHECK WITH THE CHAPTER OVERVIEW AND SUMMARY TO RECALL WHETHER YOUR COMMENTS ARE ASSIGNMENT SPECIFIC. EXAMPLES OF SPOILER THREADS ARE THE GLOSSARY, THE BIBLIOGRAPHY, THE INTRODUCTION AND THE BOOK AS A WHOLE THREADS.
Notes:
It is always a tremendous help when you quote specifically from the book itself and reference the chapter and page numbers when responding. The text itself helps folks know what you are referencing and makes things clear.
Citations:
If an author or book is mentioned other than the book and author being discussed, citations must be included according to our guidelines. Also, when citing other sources, please provide credit where credit is due and/or the link. There is no need to re-cite the author and the book we are discussing however.
If you need help - here is a thread called the Mechanics of the Board which will show you how:
http://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/2...
Glossary
Remember there is a glossary thread where ancillary information is placed by the moderator. This is also a thread where additional information can be placed by the group members regarding the subject matter being discussed.
(Part One) http://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/8...
(Part Two) http://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/1...
Bibliography
There is a Bibliography where books cited in the text are posted with proper citations and reviews. We also post the books that the author used in her research or in her notes. Please also feel free to add to the Bibliography thread any related books, etc with proper citations. No self promotion, please.
http://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/1...
Q&A with Joseph
Please as you are reading post questions to the author's Q&A thread because Joseph Persico will be looking in periodically and will be posting answers to your questions and will be available for a chat. We are very fortunate that he is making time to spend with us.
http://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/8...