The History Book Club discussion

Roosevelt's Centurions: FDR & the Commanders He Led to Victory in World War II
This topic is about Roosevelt's Centurions
105 views
PRESIDENTIAL SERIES > 20. ROOSEVELT'S CENTURIONS - BOOK AS A WHOLE AND FINAL THOUGHTS ~ October 14th - October 20th (SPOILER THREAD)

Comments Showing 1-29 of 29 (29 new)    post a comment »
dateDown arrow    newest »

message 1: by Bentley, Group Founder, Leader, Chief (last edited Jul 21, 2013 01:42PM) (new) - rated it 4 stars

Bentley | 44207 comments Mod
*****SPOILER THREAD*****

For those of you who have completed the book and/or who want to discuss aspects of the book which are beyond our weekly assignments in the non spoiler threads, this thread is a spoiler thread where you can discuss those points. We know that some folks like to color outside the lines - so this a place for them.

If you have completed the book and would like to tell us what you thought about this selection, please feel free to discuss your opinions in a respectful way here.

However, please no links to personal reviews because we consider that self promotion. Simply post your thoughts here without the links.

Many folks read ahead of the weekly assignment and that is OK too; however, you must make sure that your posted comments on the other weekly non spoiler threads do not reflect reading ahead of the posted weekly assignment. If you would like to discuss aspects of the book further along, this is a spoiler thread where you can do just that.

We try to move along the discussion slowly on the weekly non spoiler threads but realize that some folks like to move along swiftly. So we have options for both groups of folks.

This is also the thread where you write your review of the book after completing it.

Roosevelt's Centurions FDR & the Commanders He Led to Victory in World War II by Joseph E. Persico by Joseph E. Persico Joseph E. Persico


message 2: by Bentley, Group Founder, Leader, Chief (last edited May 31, 2013 09:43PM) (new) - rated it 4 stars

Bentley | 44207 comments Mod
Just an FYI:

Folks, goodreads has a disclaimer at the bottom of their book giveaways which says the following:

In compliance with FTC guidelines, please disclose in your review that you received the book for free through Goodreads Giveaways.

http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2009/10/endort...

In the instance of a book you may have gotten here through one of our kind publishers - make sure to say that you got the book for free through the History Book Club on Goodreads if you plan to post reviews elsewhere - like on the goodreads site or on the web.

I guess any free item when you review it has to have that disclaimer if you do the review on goodreads, on a blog, anyplace.

For the folks who received the free book through the History Book Club - one of the t's and c's is that you do a review of the book. This is the thread where you would post it although you are free to post it elsewhere afterwards. Your review and your rating are up to you - but please feel free to discuss your opinions in a respectful way.


message 3: by Steven (new) - added it

Steven Condon (stevenecondon) | 42 comments Jill wrote (in the Chapter One discussion thread): "...seen as 'disloyalty' to his superiors [when he was Assistant Secretary of the Navy under Wilson]...while President...it was more FDR's attitude of 'I'm in charge.'"

Perhaps the word to describe this personality trait of FDR's when he was President might be "high handed." I think that term must have come to the minds of some FDR's most senior military men (perhaps even Marshall) because of the way FDR would occasionally fail to consult, or even afterwards inform, his most senior military men after coming to a significant decision with Churchill.

Given that the Prime Minister would immediately inform the British Chiefs of Staff, Marshall sometimes found himself in the awkward situation of first learning about these decisions from his British military counterparts. This would have been especially awkward if it were a case where FDR sided with the British view, and against his own military advisors view, of what was the wisest course.


message 4: by Steven (new) - added it

Steven Condon (stevenecondon) | 42 comments The Fear of Choosing to Go to War vs. the Fear of Being Attacked

Jill wrote (in the Ch. 1 thread): "...I do think, however, that the average American was more aware of what was happening in Europe than they were in the events of the 'inscrutable East.' Did they see it as a threat to the US? I doubt it."

Persico opens Chapter One by describing General Marshall's July 1941 appearance before the Senate Committee on Military Affairs to discuss extending the one-year draft. Persico then drops back to mention the June 1940 introduction in the US House of Representatives of the original draft bill, discusses the fight over this first bill, the fight over the extension, and then devotes most of the rest of the chapter to Marshall's rise to power.

I think we have to separate Americans' (average civilians or senior military leaders) fear of "being led into a war" from the fear of US military forces being attacked by a foreign nation. Persico makes it clear that in 1940 and 1941 a good number of average Americans were afraid that FDR might intentionally draw the US into the war between Germany, France, and Britain (France was conquered by July 1941).

Prior to September 1939, when Germany invaded Poland, there was no war going on in Europe. Many Americans had heard about Hitler's brutality against German Jews (such as Kristallnacht) and the Munich attempt at appeasing Hitler, which was followed by Hitler's occupation of Czechoslovakia. But prior to June 1940, when both Britain and France stood in Hitler's way, there was little fear that Germany would attack US military ground forces. Even late in 1941 Britain still stood in the way.

In the Pacific it was a very different story. Japan's all out war of conquest with China had been going on since July 1937, with the massacres at Nanking in December that year. While California was 5,300 miles from Japan and US troops on Hawaii were 4,100 miles from Japan, US troops on Midway Island were 2,600 miles, US troops on Wake Island 2,000 miles, and US troops on the Philippines only 1,700 miles from Japan, with nothing in between but empty ocean. And Japanese forces in China were even closer to the Philippines.

So while there was fear that FDR would drag America into war with Germany, in his all out bid to save Britain, the real threat to American ground, air, or even naval forces (other than naval vessels escorting convoys) was seen as coming from Japan. US War Plan Orange, devised in 1924 in the event of a Japanese-US war, called for an elite 40,000-man US military force defending the Philippines while other Pacific outposts held out on their own and the US Pacific Fleet defended the US west coast and the Panama Canal.

A Gallup poll late in 1941 found 52% of Americans expected war with Japan, 27% did not expect war, and 21% had no opinion. That is almost twice as many Americans expecting war with Japan as not expecting war with Japan.

I have placed this comment here even though it responds to comments from several people on the Chapter 1 discussion thread and even though it goes little further in time than does Persico's Chapter 1, so as not to bend any rules.


Jill Hutchinson (bucs1960) Thanks, Steven for commenting on my comments. I was not aware of the Gallup poll or at least I don't remember seeing it in the book which appears to refute my thoughts about how the average Joe felt about a coming war. It is not surprising that the military knew that Japan was a threat but my comments were based on my opinion that, although Japan was wreaking havoc in China, the American public which was either not that familiar with the Far East or didn't care much, was looking at Europe as the upcoming war. The press of the day gave much more attention to the European situation than that in China and the scattered islands of the Pacific. Who knew where Wake or Midway islands were or that Japan could strike Hawaii and what it would mean. I just don't feel that the general public knew enough about the location of American troops or the Pacific Fleet to think much about the threat from Japan.
I guess this is why I'm not in charge of Gallup polls!!! (smile)


Alisa (mstaz) Thanks for your comments, Steven and Jill. Good info and dialogue.


message 7: by Bentley, Group Founder, Leader, Chief (new) - rated it 4 stars

Bentley | 44207 comments Mod
Steven wrote: "Jill wrote (in the Chapter One discussion thread): "...seen as 'disloyalty' to his superiors [when he was Assistant Secretary of the Navy under Wilson]...while President...it was more FDR's attitud..."

It must have been tough for Marshall not to have felt resentful and yet he seemed to handle this with aplomb.


message 8: by Bentley, Group Founder, Leader, Chief (new) - rated it 4 stars

Bentley | 44207 comments Mod
Steven wrote: "The Fear of Choosing to Go to War vs. the Fear of Being Attacked

Jill wrote (in the Ch. 1 thread): "...I do think, however, that the average American was more aware of what was happening in Europe..."


Thank you Steven for placing your comments here. I think as far as Japan - there was a lot of provocation and mistrust on both sides and quite a few rather in bad taste cartoons describing the Japanese in a bad light so I fear that they were more in the newspapers than probably the Germans were in relationship to the US aside from the U-Boats, etc. Though everyone knew what Britain and France were going through - somehow to many it still seemed like a foreign entanglement. It is odd isn't it how a former ally could have turned so dramatically from World War I until 1941.


message 9: by Steven (last edited Jun 25, 2013 03:09AM) (new) - added it

Steven Condon (stevenecondon) | 42 comments Was Pearl Harbor the most stunning intelligence failure in American history? (Full comment)

In the middle of Chapter 5, Persico makes the following bold statement: “Granted, the surprise attack on Pearl Harbor was the most stunning intelligence failure in American history, perhaps in all history.”

This intelligence failure, leading to an attack on a military base located 2,400 miles from the western coast of the US, left 3,649 killed and wounded, and severely crippled the Pacific Fleet. Many unfortunate events came together to culminate in this disaster but one of the most significant was that although military personnel detected the Japanese warplanes on their radar screen, these were misidentified as the delivery of six anticipated B-17 bombers. (Radar incident told in : Wikipedia's 'Attack on Pearl Harbor' article

But was Pearl Harbor really "the most stunning intelligence failure in American history"? I would submit that there was an earlier intelligence failure whose consequences were equally stunning, more momentous, and more threatening to the United States, a failure which resulted in over 14,000 US soldiers killed, wounded, captured or missing; a failure which left a US field army battered, shaken, and retreating; and a failure which placed a victorious enemy army on the very doorstep of the nation's capital, resulting in near panic.

As with Pearl Harbor many unfortunate events coalesced to produce this disaster, but perhaps the most significant were three faulty intelligence reports. Similar to the Pearl Harbor radar sighting mentioned above, these three intelligence failures all involved the misinterpretation of observations of the distant enemy force. The most significant of these may have been the case of the Mistaken Mountain.

An unnamed US military observer--most likely Colonel John Clark, who was guilty of the other two faulty intelligence reports--while observing the dust cloud thrown up by the enemy army as it marched along the east side of Big Cobbler Mountain, about eleven miles north-northwest of the US observation post, mistook the mountain for Buck Mountain, which was about eight miles west of Big Cobbler Mountain.

Largely because of the Mistaken Mountain and the other two intelligence failures, Stonewall Jackson, commanding at that time half of the regiments in Robert E. Lee's Army of Northern Virginia, was able to place himself astride the railroad and telegraphic communications lines then linking Major General John Pope's Union Army with his source of daily supplies (Alexandria, Virginia), his source of expected reinforcements (also Alexandria), and most importantly of all, linking Pope, via telegraph, with Pope's immediate commanding officer, US General-in-Chief Henry Halleck, in Washington, DC.

Because Jackson's outflanking maneuver cut Pope's communications, it forced Pope to abandon the strong river defense line--where for several days he had successfully been holding Lee at bay--and retreat back north to Manassas Junction. As a consequence, these faulty intelligence reports resulted in the big confrontation with Lee's army (known today as the Second Battle of Manassas, a.k.a. Second Bull Run) taking place under less favorable terrain circumstances for the Union and before many of Pope's expected reinforcements could reach him, and thus played a large role in Pope's defeat in that battle.

Had Pope received accurate intelligence reports, he very likely would have blocked Jackson at the critical mountain pass known as Thoroughfare Gap, and would thus have had sufficient time to receive the additional reinforcements for which he was waiting. And with these reinforcements Pope might well have had the overwhelming advantage in numbers that would have allowed him to defeat Jackson and Lee, either jointly or separately, a strategic turn of events that might have resulted in greatly shortening the American Civil War, for America, the most costly war (in loss of life) that it has ever been involved in.


Craig (twinstuff) Steven wrote: "Was Pearl Harbor the most stunning intelligence failure in American history? (Full comment)

I would submit that there was an earlier intelligence failure whose consequences were equally stunning, more momentous, and more threatening to the United States, a failure which resulted in over 14,000 US soldiers killed, wounded, captured or missing; a failure which left a US field army battered, shaken, and retreating; and a failure which placed a victorious enemy army on the very doorstep of the nation's capital, resulting in near panic.
.."


What specific earlier failure are you referring to?


Alisa (mstaz) Interesting argument, Steven. It seems to me that the intelligence failure regarding Pearl Harbor was not limited to misidentified radar but also the failure to act on the intercepted messages also played a part. By sheer number of lives lost in total the Civil War is indeed one of America,s greatest tragedies. In terms of other factors such as destruction in our nations capital and inducing fear, well unfortunately there are other incidents which are contenders for this category. It's hard to not acknowledge Pearl Harbor as a significant intelligence failure with horrible consequences.


message 12: by Steven (last edited Jun 25, 2013 01:43PM) (new) - added it

Steven Condon (stevenecondon) | 42 comments Craig wrote: "Steven wrote: "Was Pearl Harbor the most stunning intelligence failure in American history? (Full comment)

I would submit that there was an earlier intelligence failure whose consequences were e..."


I thought I made that clear, the three faulty intelligence reports passed to General Pope concerning the march of the "mysterious enemy column" (Stonewall Jackson with half of Robert E. Lee's regiments). Because of these three faulty observations of the marching column or, more often the dust cloud thrown up by the column, Pope was told that the Confederates were heading west and northwest, when in reality Jackson was heading mostly north on day one of his two day march to carry out his famous raid to Manassas Junction.

Jackson's end run forced Pope to retreat from his strong Rappahannock River defense line, where he had successfully been holding Lee at bay for several days while Pope waited for reinforcements from General George McClellan's Army of the Potomac. Because Jackson permanently cut both Pope's railroad line to Alexandria, Virginia and Pope's telegraph line to General-in-chief Halleck in Washington, DC, Pope was denied reinforcements that he otherwise would have received before the conflict with Lee's army.

Those three examples of faulty military intelligence, particularly the Mistaken Mountain, greatly worsened Pope's chances in the conflict with Lee that, as a result of Jackson's raid, now occurred at Manassas.


message 13: by Steven (new) - added it

Steven Condon (stevenecondon) | 42 comments Alisa wrote: "Interesting argument, Steven. It seems to me that the intelligence failure regarding Pearl Harbor was not limited to misidentified radar but also the failure to act on the intercepted messages als..."

Nowhere did I say that Pearl Harbor was not a "significant intelligence failure with horrible consequences." It was a significant intelligence failure and it did have horrible consequences. But when you consider the raw numbers of casualties, Second Manassas (aka Second Bull Run) far outweighed Pearl Harbor. When you consider how far Pearl Harbor was from the continental US (2400 miles) and how close Manaasas Junction was to Washington, DC (30 miles), you see how much more threatening Second Manassas was to the Union's prospects of winning the Civil War, compared to the threat caused by the raid on Pearl Harbor to our prospects of winning the war against Japan.

If Lee had captured Washington, the Union would have lost the war and the Confederacy would today still exist. If Lee had just had a successful invasion of Maryland (and possibly Pennsylvania also)--something very possible, if Lee's invasion plans had not fortuitously dropped into George McClellan's lap--the CSA might well have won recognition from Britain and France, and that too might well have led to the CSA's independence.


Alisa (mstaz) I was not taking issue with your position, and did not mean to imply you were somehow not acknowledging the impact of Pearl Harbor. Sorry if it came off that way, that was not my intent. I see your logic about the Civil War situation.


Craig (twinstuff) So I did finish the book as after sticking with the assigned reading schedule for a couple of months, I realized I wasn't going to be able to stick with that type of specific schedule and as a summer reward, I splurged and read 350 pages these last two weeks.

Never having read Persico before, I really enjoyed his writing style and thoroughness. I've read a lot of WW II history before (but by no means can I consider myself an expert on World War II) and this does rank as one of the smoothest-flowing books on a specific aspect of the war I've read.

I really liked how Persico introduced each military leader with a brief biographical sketch and then fleshed out the relationship they had with Roosevelt. Although I don't think Chester Nimitz got quite the respect in the book he deserves. It almost seemed like we read more about Kay Summersby than Nimitz and while the former is interesting reading, it shouldn't come at the expense of giving Nimitz his fair shake.

And after finishing the book, I'm not sure why Douglas MacArthur was considered such a military genius - Persico does address this a little bit in his book's excellent final chapter, but I need to hear more about MacArthur's achievements to be sold.

Other things I liked about the book were little historical vignettes I had never read elsewhere (FDR hinting he would resign the presidency after the war was over and the U.N. up-and-running, for instance) and detail on some of the conferences in Quebec and elsewhere that don't always get the same respect as Yalta, Potsdam and Casablanca. (of course with FDR not at Potsdam, that conference wasn't really in this book either)

By the way, the last chapter is by far the best in the book. It seems like a lot of history books don't end with that type of wrap-up and it really worked well here.

Roosevelt's Centurions FDR & the Commanders He Led to Victory in World War II by Joseph E. Persico by Joseph E. Persico Joseph E. Persico


Alisa (mstaz) Great review, Craig. Thanks so much for your comments and thoughtful participation. Much appreciated.


message 17: by Bentley, Group Founder, Leader, Chief (new) - rated it 4 stars

Bentley | 44207 comments Mod
Craig, one thing I would suggest is to continue to participate on the weekly threads which is part of the t's and c's for receiving the book - I am sure you would have a lot to offer and we look forward to reading your posts which is why we do these book offers and finally it seems that you have a few questions which I think you should pose to the author Joe Persico since he is here with us on the Q&A thread and is looking for additional questions that folks might have. You might ask him about Nimitz or Douglas MacArthur or FDR and potential resignation. All good topics for some probing questions.

And thank you for your review.


message 18: by G (new) - rated it 4 stars

G Hodges (glh1) | 901 comments I received this book as a Goodreads giveaway and would like to thank them, the History Book Club, and Random House for this opportunity. I would also like to thank the moderators, who uniformly create an environment in which it is not at all threatening to participate, and yet ask clarifying questions.

At the onset, Mr. Persico announces he will investigate three themes: FDR as recruiter in chief, as strategist in chief and as home front motivator in chief, and how well FDR succeeded in these roles.

Does the author achieve his goal? In large part, I think he does. In the process, he does point out FDR’s failures as well. For example, listening to Churchill with regard to North Africa and Italy, or caving in to Stalin’s demands repeatedly.

FDR realized much of war and politics is psychology – in some cases putting on a show of strength or demoralizing the enemy. He used this to advantage to foster morale in the US. The press at the time aided this, by being circumspect in their reports on political figures and the catastrophes of war.

Mr. Persico gives us insights into FDR’s relationships with Churchill and Stalin and there were times when I was repulsed. With his own commanders he was a man of vision; with the Allied leaders there were times when he seemed to be little more than a pawn.

So in my opinion, Persico did put together answers to the questions he asked. FDR amazingly chose the right people for the job, and his military leaders stayed in place throughout the war. As a strategist, FDR had wins and losses. It is unlikely that Germany would have been defeated as quickly if we had focused on the Pacific war first, but was going through North Africa and Italy necessary for the European success? Was it necessary to kowtow to Stalin’s wishes?

A large portion of the book covers the relationship between FDR and Stalin, which was eye opening for me, and showed, to some degree, how FDR was flawed as ‘strategist in chief’. But it also showed there were times when Persico lost the thread of ‘Roosevelt’s Centurions’.

As a side note, Truman was barely mentioned even though he did carry out Roosevelt’s wishes with regard to the bomb.

One of the aspects of this book that I especially appreciate was the use of anecdotes/statements from one peer about another, for example Bradley on Patton and Butcher on FDR. He also brought together random facts that coalesced into something greater than the caricatures they had previously been for me.

FDR had great insight into the people who worked for him, but very little into the people he worked with. In my opinion this was a flawed but good book.

Omar Bradley
Harry C. Butcher
Winston Churchill Winston Churchill
George S. Patton Jr. George S. Patton Jr.
Joseph Stalin Joseph Stalin


message 19: by G (new) - rated it 4 stars

G Hodges (glh1) | 901 comments This video from CSPAN is a good companion to the book:
Joseph Persico


message 20: by Jill (new) - rated it 5 stars

Jill Hutchinson (bucs1960) A great review, G. Your participation was welcome and your comments were insightful. Thanks so much.


message 21: by Lewis (last edited Oct 13, 2013 10:41PM) (new)

Lewis Codington | 291 comments Many thanks to Random House for providing Roosevelt's Centurions to us through the Goodreads Giveaways program. I found this to be a thoroughly enjoyable book and will definitely look into some of Persico's other books as well. Although Roosevelt and World War II are surely among the most written about subjects in US history, the author's style and approach made this book a very pleasurable read and not a work that seemed tedious or repeating what I have already learned about this period of history.

I find that history is fascinating primarily because of the personalities involved and how they behave, interact, and react, particularly during crisis or monumental times. The dynamics and interactions between Roosevelt, Churchill, Stalin, and others were fascinating and enlightening, providing new windows into these figures as well as into the twists and turns of how the war played out. Persico used a very readable, conversational style throughout the book, and added brief biographical looks into the important personalities as he introduced them into the story. He used this tool to good effect, and his summary of the larger issues in the final chapter was also very enjoyable.

I give the author high marks for presenting to us a work that is fresh and a pleasure to read, even though the subject has been covered and dissected in innumerable works previously.


Bryan Craig Lewis, I read many sections of his book with Powell and recommend it:

My American Journey by Colin Powell by Colin Powell (no photo)


Bryan Craig I also want to thank Random House and Goodreads. I liked this book. Persico's writing style is great, it flows well and fast; you are not bogged down at all.

I learned some things, too, how FDR used his skills on strategy and his relationships with his generals and other world leaders.

It was a pleasure.


Alisa (mstaz) First, a belated thank you to all who participated in the group read and to the fabulous assisting moderators who pitched in to finish off the group discussion as well as during the weekly discussions. It was an enjoyable experience to read and discuss this with all of you. Thanks to Random House for their generosity as well.

Personally, I enjoyed this book very much. I found it insightful, and the author's writing style made it very accessible. Wow there were a lot of characters, and the view of their personalities and idiosyncrasies made it all the more compelling. All in a very good book that I will surely pass onto others.


message 25: by G (new) - rated it 4 stars

G Hodges (glh1) | 901 comments I've just learned that Mr. Persico has died. I truly learned from his books and especially found this group read, and his comments enlightening.


Alisa (mstaz) Ah, so sorry to hear this news. He left us with some compelling reading. RIP Joseph Persico.


Bryan Craig Thanks for letting us know, G. Sad, I enjoyed his work.


message 28: by Bentley, Group Founder, Leader, Chief (new) - rated it 4 stars

Bentley | 44207 comments Mod
I am just reading this now and very sad to learn of his death.


message 29: by Bentley, Group Founder, Leader, Chief (new) - rated it 4 stars

Bentley | 44207 comments Mod
Joseph E. Persico
Obituary

Persico, Joseph E. GUILDERLAND Joseph E. Persico passed away at 10:45 a.m. on Saturday, August 30, 2014, at St. Peter's Hospital in Albany, after a long illness. His family was with him. Mr. Persico followed 11 years as chief speechwriter for New York Governor and Vice President Nelson A. Rockefeller with a career as biographer and historian.

He wrote his first book, "My Enemy My Brother," about the Battle of Gettysburg, as he once put it, "while moonlighting from my speechwriting job, out of desperation at having to write in somebody else's shadow." After leaving government and politics in 1977, Mr. Persico began writing books full time.

His works include several acclaimed biographies and histories. Eric Sevaried described Mr. Persico's "Edward R. Murrow: An American Original" as "the definitive" biography of the broadcast pioneer. The New York Times reviewer said of Mr. Persico's, "The Imperial Rockefeller", "No one has written a book like this about Nelson Rockefeller before." His "Nuremberg: Infamy On Trial" was described by the broadcast journalist, Howard K. Smith, as "simply the best account of the trial." The Nuremberg book was adapted by Turner Network Television for a miniseries winning two Emmy Awards.

Mr. Persico also co-authored Secretary of State Colin Powell's autobiography, "My American Journey", which remained for 20 weeks on the New York Times bestseller list. Mr. Persico's other books include "Casey: From the OSS to the CIA", "Piercing the Reich", "The Spiderweb", a novel, "Roosevelt's Secret War", A New York Times, Notable Book of the Year, "Eleventh Month, Eleventh Day, Eleventh Hour: Armistice Day 1918", "Franklin and Lucy" and most recently "Roosevelt's Centurions: FDR and the Commanders He Led to Victory in World War II". As a member of the American Battle Monuments Commission he wrote the Announcement and Field of Gold Stars inscriptions inscribed on the World War II Memorial in Washington D.C. Mr. Persico also served as a consultant, writer and on camera commentator on several television documentaries for PBS, A&E and The History Channel.

Joseph E. Persico was born in Gloversville on July 19, 1930, where his parents, Thomas and Blanche Persico, worked in the local glove trade. He graduated from the State University of New York at Albany in 1952, and entered the Navy where he served as a lieutenant junior grade aboard a minesweeper during the Korean War and later with NATO headquarters in Naples, Italy. He subsequently joined the U.S. Information Agency and was posted to Rio de Janeiro, Buenos Aires and Washington, D.C. He then went to work for Governor Rockefeller. In 1996, his alma mater awarded Mr. Persico an honorary degree as Doctor of Letters, "for your outstanding contributions as a writer in illuminating the human actor on the public stage."

Of his career Mr. Persico once said, "I was infected with the writing virus after winning a ninth grade essay contest - prize, $10 in 1944 War Savings Stamps - and I never recovered."

In recent years, Mr. Persico divided his time between homes in Albany and San Miguel de Allende, Mexico. He is survived by his wife, Sylvia LaVista Persico; daughters, Vanya Perez, and Andrea Holder; five grandchildren, Amanda and Joshua Perez, and Georgia, Daniela and Sofia Holder; a brother, Richard Persico and sister, Annabelle Townson. The calling period to pay respects will be held on Thursday, September 4, 2014 from 5 to 7 p.m. at Guilderland's DeMarco-Stone Funeral Home, 5216 Western Turnpike (Rt.20 just west of Carman Rd. (Rt. 146).

A private burial service will be held at the Saratoga National Cemetery. In lieu of flowers, donations may be made in Mr. Persico's name to the University Library at Albany, which houses Mr. Persico's archival papers.

Checks may be made payable to the University at Albany Foundation, and sent to the University Library, LI-123, 1400 Washington Ave., Albany, NY 12222. Alternatively, donations may be made to Mr. Persico's beloved hometown library, the Gloversville Public Library, 58 E. Fulton St., Gloversville, NY 12078.
- See more at: http://www.legacy.com/obituaries/time...


back to top