The History Book Club discussion
This topic is about
An Army at Dawn
THE SECOND WORLD WAR
>
WE ARE OPEN - 1. AN ARMY AT DAWN ~ September 9 th ~ September 15th ~ PROLOGUE AND PART ONE - 1. PASSAGE - A Meeting with the Dutchmen - (1 - 33) No-Spoilers
date
newest »
newest »
Bentley wrote: "given the options that were presented by Marshall, King, the War Department and everybody else surrounding FDR - what other good options did he have given the circumstances. If given that decision making power would there have been some things you would have tweeked better?..."Just finishing up this part, I understand a bit more where FDR was coming from. It sounds like we did not even have enough landing craft to do a cross channel invasion let alone other equipment. We could go into Africa and at least start fighting. I'm not sure FDR could have changed Churchill's mind, either. Churchill might have dithered about and still press for Africa. Tough spot for FDR.
Winston Churchill
Franklin D. Roosevelt
I agree with what Tom is saying, we learned a lot from North Africa. It was a high price for lessons learned, but it is what the military does after an engagement (you hope) that they go over and figure out what went wrong. Also, from what Atkinson is saying, we probably did not have enough men trained and material (including ships) to pull off a channel invasion so early. It would be interesting to read the opposition...maybe we could get everything ready by then, but from this book, it does not sound likely.
message 54:
by
Bentley, Group Founder, Leader, Chief
(last edited Sep 11, 2013 04:07PM)
(new)
-
rated it 5 stars
Mod
@Peter - I was so dismayed by the lack of consideration for those young men risking their lives during what many considered a trial exercise for the real deal. And I do agree with you that Patton did have a point that there is always a critical period where the rubber meets the road and you are all in or not. Do you think that there is one branch of service that is more important than the others in terms of World War II?
@Phillip - welcome Phillip to the discussion - great point about the initiation process for our troops - we certainly were not there yet at the beginning of the North African initiative. Are there any other things in the Prologue that surprised you?
@Tom - what were those things about Marshall that you liked? And you do think that FDR made the right call - and many folks would agree with you. I think it was 50/50 at that point in time - what advantages do you think the allies gained from the North African initiative and how do you think it benefited Russia for example - if you think it did?
@Christopher - yes I am an unabashed Marshall fan too and I think his humility and quiet demeanor and other great qualities should have been rewarded more - and he was head and shoulders above Ike who got all of the accolades and notoriety and thus became President when I believe if FDR had lived - chances are that office would have gone to Marshall. Marshall was more FDR's right hand man than Truman could ever have dreamed of. Why do you think that Ike became THE candidate and not Marshall? Should Ike have backed down and allowed Marshall to shine?
@Patricrk - good point about the fact that the last war was supposed to be the war that ended all wars. Excellent point about air power - and folks like Billy Martin did not get their due - do you think that the air force should be credited for winning the war or do you think that the boots on the ground were the ones that broke the Germans? Certainly North Africa was not about superiority in the sky? And you believe that conflict between Russia and Germany was key to winning - because that was the diversion and the front that diluted the Germans?? I very much agree with your last sentence - have you given any thought where the second front should have been if it was not in North Africa?
message 55:
by
Bentley, Group Founder, Leader, Chief
(last edited Sep 11, 2013 05:33PM)
(new)
-
rated it 5 stars
Mod
b) And who among our presidents stands out as meeting the above qualifications from your viewpoint?
c) Do you think that the Commander in Chief should be a former soldier or have served in the military - although that is getting to be rather rare?
d) Do you think that a former military man has an edge or a special relationship with the military and can be more readily identified as the commander in chief?
e) What about FDR - severely disabled and in a wheel chair - why did that not hinder FDR in carrying out his duties as Commander in Chief and did not seem to present any drawbacks whatsoever?
f) What did you think of Truman as Commander in Chief after FDR's demise? Or the presidents who came after?
g) Do you think that the military responds to the person who is in the office despite their background or not having served in the same way as somebody who has?
h) Are there any dangers having a Commander in Chief who has never served and never gone into battle or been in harms way?
i) Do you think that the Pentagon and the military apparatus in this country have enough influence, too much influence or not enough influence - why or why not?
j) The state of the armed forces at the start of World War II was dismal at best. The country owes a great deal to Marshall in getting the support needed to develop the force that was necessary to win the war and carry the day. What risks does the United States face today with their military and its preparedness? Do you think that we would ever find ourselves in the same position as we found ourselves in when we deployed to North Africa?
k) What about our allies? England owes the US a great deal. Do you think that the assistance given to the UK has been forgotten by the British considering the vote in Parliament recently? And do you think another President would go out on a limb as FDR did for an ally in trouble? And do you think that an ally would do the same for the US or is it a different world and time in history.
l) If you could choose the ideal Commander in Chief for this country - either past or present - who would that person be and why? And what difference do you think they would make in this day and age? And can you think of any other Commander in Chief who might have done a better job than FDR given the circumstances? And how would you rate FDR in retrospect reflecting back to the circumstances he faced at that time?
m) Just some things to consider as we embark on this journey. And in the Prologue and this week's first subsection - what characteristics did FDR embody which are some of the characteristics that we should find in a Commander in Chief and where do you think he might have been lacking in terms of his decision making ability and the way he handled the War Department? If 10 is high and 1 is low on a scale of 1 to 10 - how would you rank FDR so far?
n) And how would you rate Churchill and Stalin as their country's commanders in chief?
message 56:
by
Bentley, Group Founder, Leader, Chief
(last edited Sep 11, 2013 05:51PM)
(new)
-
rated it 5 stars
Mod
President Roosevelt himself had summoned him to the White House for this secret meeting, and although the session was likely to be little more than a courtesy call, it would never do for the man chosen to strike the first American blow in the liberation of Europe to keep his commander-in-chief waiting
What did you think of the circumstances facing this man after reading this excerpt - Daunting was the word that came to my lips.
Kent Hewitt seemed an unlikely warrior. Now fifty-five, he had a high, bookish forehead and graying hair. Double chins formed a fleshy creel at his throat, and on a ship’s bridge, in his everyday uniform, he appeared “a fat, bedraggled figure in khaki,” as a British admiral once observed with more accuracy than kindness. Even the fine uniform he wore this morning fit like blue rummage, notwithstanding the flag officer’s gold braid that trimmed his cuffs. A native of Hackensack, New Jersey, Hewitt was the son of a mechanical engineer and the grandson of a former president of the Trenton Iron Works. One uncle had been mayor of New York, another the superintendent of the Metropolitan Museum of Art. Kent chose the Navy, but as a midshipman in the Annapolis sail loft he was said to have been so frightened of heights that he “squeezed the tar out of the rigging.” As a young swain he had enjoyed dancing the turkey trot; in recent decades, though, he was more likely to be fiddling with his slide rule or attending a meeting of his Masonic lodge.
Yet Hewitt had become a formidable sea dog. Aboard the battleship U.S.S. Missouri, he circled the globe for fifteen months with Theodore Roosevelt’s Great White Fleet, displaying such a knack for navigation that the stars seemed to eat from his hand. As a destroyer captain in World War I, he had won the Navy Cross for heroism. Later he chaired the Naval Academy’s mathematics department, and for two years after the invasion of Poland he ran convoy escorts between Newfoundland and Iceland, ferrying war matériel across the North Atlantic.
In April 1942, Hewitt had been ordered to Hampton Roads to command the Atlantic Fleet’s new Amphibious Force; late that summer came Roosevelt’s decision to seize North Africa in Operation TORCH. Two great armadas would carry more than 100,000 troops to the invasion beaches. One fleet would sail 2,800 miles from Britain to Algeria, with mostly British ships ferrying mostly American soldiers. The other fleet, designated Task Force 34, was Hewitt’s. He was to sail 4,500 miles to Morocco from Hampton Roads and other U.S. ports with more than 100 American ships bearing 33,843 American soldiers. In a message on October 13, General Eisenhower, the TORCH commander, had reduced the mission to twenty-six words: “The object of the operations as a whole is to occupy French Morocco and Algeria with a view to the earliest possible subsequent occupation of Tunisia.” The Allies’ larger ambition in TORCH had been spelled out by Roosevelt and Churchill: “complete control of North Africa from the Atlantic to the Red Sea.”
Through a tiny window over the plane’s wing, Hewitt could see the full glory of Indian summer in the nation’s capital. Great smears of color—crimson and orange, amber and dying green—extended from the elms around the Lincoln Memorial to the oaks and maples beyond the National Cathedral. Across the Potomac, the new Pentagon building filled Hell’s Bottom between Arlington Cemetery and the river. Jokes had already begun circulating about the immense five-sided maze, including the story of a Western Union boy who entered the Pentagon on a Friday and emerged on Monday as a lieutenant colonel. Though it now owned the world’s largest building, the Army was still leasing thirty-five other office complexes around the city, and cynics quipped that if the military were to seize enemy territory as quickly as it had conquered Washington, the war could end in a week.
The plane settled onto the runway and taxied to a hangar. Hewitt buttoned his jacket and hurried down the steps to the Navy staff car waiting on the tarmac. The car sped through the airfield gate and across the Anacostia River to Pennsylvania Avenue. Hewitt had enough time to swing by the Navy Department building downtown and check there for messages before heading to the White House.
“You do everything you can,” he liked to say, “then you hope for the best.” Since receiving the first top-secret orders for Task Force 34, he had done everything he could, to the verge of exhaustion. Every day brought new problems to solve, mistakes to fix, anxieties to quell. Rehearsals for the TORCH landings had been hurried and slipshod. With Axis predators sinking nearly 200 Allied vessels a month, including many along the American coast, all amphibious training had been moved inside the Chesapeake Bay, whose modest tides and gentle waves resembled not at all the ferocious surf typical of the Moroccan coast. During one exercise, only a single boat arrived on the designated beach, even though a lighthouse had provided a beacon on a clear night with a calm sea; the rest of the craft were scattered for miles along the Maryland shore. In another exercise, at Cove Point, ninety miles north of Norfolk, security broke down and the men stormed the beach to be greeted by an enterprising ice cream vendor. In Scotland, the training by troops bound for Algeria was going no better; sometimes it was conducted without the encumbrance of actual ships, because none were available. Troops moved on foot across an imaginary ocean toward an imaginary coast.
If you think that Hewitt was the right choice for this job and an excellent FDR decision - present your rationale.
If you think that Hewitt was not the ideal candidate - do the same.
Why do you think FDR selected this particular person for the job and not somebody else - what was special about this man?
Mod
@BentleyMarshall was VMI, had experience and skills to successfully bring the US Military (kicking and screaming)into the modern era. He seemed to excel at what ever he needed to do, work with politicians, generals, world leaders, he picked numerous successful people for important jobs and he had an ability to see the war at hand and beyond. It is one thing to win a war, but then what? He had answers for what was to come next and valid ones at that. I see him as similar to George McClellan during the Civil War. A master organizer and inspiring trainer. However, unlike Little Mac, he was very humble and did not suffer from being assigned the wrong job for his skill set.
The advantages the Allies gained in the successes and failures of North Africa and Italy I am sure will be listed in this book. Off the top of my head, these operations served as a wake up call. They identified weaknesses, overconfidence, supply and logistics issues. Not to mention they underscored the importance of air support. Lastly, North Africa and Italy simply showed that the Germans could be beaten. With these things addressed by D-Day, or at least many of them, there were fewer lessons to learn.
As for the effect on the Russians, I recently read Vasily Grossman's journal on the Russian Front. It is interesting to me he makes no reference to the Allied efforts in North Africa or Italy. He does document celebrations by Russian soldiers when given the news of in their words the long awaited "second front." Perhaps Torch was comforting only to Stalin and Overlord more so to the troops?
This is my first Goodreads discussion and I must say I am enjoying it tremendously. Thanks for hosting and doing a fine job.
Mod
Mod
Marshall was VMI, had experience and skills to successfully bring the US Military (kicking and screaming)into the modern era. He seemed to excel at what ever he needed to do, work with po..."
First let me get the citation out of the way: (we can help you with this Tom)
by
Vasily GrossmanGlad you are enjoying the discussion - there is a lot in the Prologue and this first subsection which sets the stage for what is to come - especially the personalities and their interactions with each other and their counterparts overseas.
You make some great points about Marshall - the epitome of a gentleman. Yes, I agree - things will unfold for us as we read along but sometimes it is fun to hypothesize about this or that and discuss some what ifs or various courses of action the president and others could have taken and what the alternative results might have been. For example, what if North Africa was not FDR's decision and he listened to Marshall and the War Department versus Churchill. North Africa is in this book and Italy is the next book.
Another great point you make is that North Africa and to a large extent Italy became proving grounds - and I think in a way as you correctly pointed out - they helped eventually to instill confidence in these newly minted soldiers and gave them a new mindset that the Germans were beatable. I am sure that the Russians were ecstatic about a second front and I think that FDR made the North Africa decision as much for Stalin as he did for Churchill and probably in the final analysis surprisingly more for the former than for the latter.
I think we are going to learn a lot from these three books and Atkinson is already off to a great start. Great post, Tom.
To Me, TORCH was the only viable option for the US in 1942. Britain had only one 'open front' against the Germans, in Egypt, and they had (finally) learned how to fight a modern war on that front. Crossing the channel was simply not on with the training and equipment of 1942, against the German army of 1942 - the British demonstrated this at Dieppe, losing a lot of men and equipment, but learning a lot in the process. The Germans of 1944 were not as formidable a foe, after Stalingrad and Kursk, etc.
I think FDR's decision was greatly influenced by Churchill, but in this case Churchill was a lot more realistic than the US soldiers. Most Generals were ready to fight the last war, and had many of them had to be dumped before building a realistic army. The British went through the same process 1939-42, before getting men in command that knew how to fight the modern way. The more you see of this book (I had read several other accounts of TORCH, but this is by far the best, and most detailed) the more you realize that what the US landed in N.Africa was not an 'Army', but a lot of people, few of whom knew their jobs, and most of whom had no idea what they were getting into. The British 1st army was perhaps a little better, but only in patches.
Command and control of a large number of men is not an east skill to learn, and usually needs hard (and bloody) experience. Leadership in battle is not easy either, and finding the men who can do it is often an even bloodier process.
I am looking forward to seeing how it was accomplished.
@BentleyActually, back in WW2 I don't think that any branch was more or less important, I mean infantry is always necessary but in some cases if you have no armour...
Also, many setbacks happened because of no close air support available to sustain and protect infantry and armour advance in the field.
Im my view, the germans started "integrated" warfare, wich was fundamental for "Blitkrieg" tactics...
@BentleyAbout Commander in Chief subject, a) b) c) and d):
- The qualifications needed for someone to have that specific role are difficult to explain and even to understand. I'm not a US citizen but we in Portugal "choose" our Commander in Chief the same way you do, it's the President ...!
So, nowadays that role has become somewhat secondary, I mean there are always military and civilan personnel that have to support that role...
I think that the Commander in Chief should be military, with charisma and profound miltary knowledge, in support of the civilian government when situations arise in which there has to be a military response/involvement...
@BentleyAbout Commander in Chief subject, h):
- There are (and was) always dangers in choosig someone to fulfill a role like that; truth is, it's always better to make a mistake then let others decide our fate for us. What I mean is someone have to decide, and good military leadership show up in crysys situations and not in peace time...
@BentleyAbout Commander in Chief subject, i):
- I only know what I see in the news and in what I read, but I think that there are always military and civilian roles to fulfill in the present.
They should work together; the world is more and more unsafe, and when diplomatic options are out, the military should engage...
Finally, there are bad/good, competent/incompetent people, branches, departments, etc, but the US, Portugal and other free countries remain...
Bentley wrote: "a) what do you think are the qualifications for the Commander in Chief - legal, personal, credentials, background desired or preferred. b) And who among our presidents stands out as meeting the above qualifications from your viewpoint"
A) A U.S. president acting as Commander-in-Chief should assume the ultimate responsibility of protecting our nation. A Commander-in-Chief should always seek peace through strength and enter war as a last option. If war is declared through Congress the Commander-in-Chief should guide and lead our nation until peace is restored.
History recalls Washington, Lincoln as two of the greatest U.S. presidents. One common link is that they actively served as Commander-in-Chief during war. It is unfortunate that some individuals view war as a path for historical recognition. Thankfully these individuals are rare.
B) Washington, Lincoln and Reagan. :-)
Relating to the book and i). where is Secretary of War Stimson? I think he gets one mention this week. This is either a choice by the author or I suspect it is more that FDR had a large say in strategy and who he wants to command. I wonder how often he talked with Stimson relating to strategy.
Bentley wrote: "For sure Toby - Americans like to go for the bulls eye even though a direct route is not always fortuitous. But that is what always gets me about the military operations then and now - there is al..."Atkinson cites the Civil War General U.S. Grant (pg. 11) as a basis for why some American generals prior to WWII supported a 'direct-route', find where the enemy is concentrated and fight 'em approach. Until Grant arrived to take full command of the Union armies, vacillation and the excessive caution of U.S. General McClellan and others militated against the Union cause. In consideration of the time elapsed, the Civil War may seem like a weak historical precedent but in view of the intervening generations of military commanders -- perhaps one and a half ? -- perhaps it's a bit stronger. Roosevelt, I believe, chose the right line of thinking -- discretion is the better part of valor -- and I expect he will get quick vindication in the first days of the TORCH.
Two key learning points for me in this section include the nature of the Germany-Vichy agreement which left some 100,000+ French troops in N. Africa pledged to fight any invaders and Churchill's emphasis on the importance of helping the Russians on what would be 'the second front'.
Bryan wrote: "Relating to the book and i). where is Secretary of War Stimson? I think he gets one mention this week. This is either a choice by the author or I suspect it is more that FDR had a large say in st..."Interesting point about Stimson. I don't think I've ever noticed in the history books that he was involved much in strategy talks. Since he was the army secretary I guess he let Marshall put forward the army point of view in those talks. He was probably more behind the scenes arguing with the Navy Secretary on who got what allocation of manpower and steel and with Congress.
I had never understood the Vichy situation in so much detail - their leaders in Africa had a real dilemma, not helped by the kind of leaders they were. Darlan and Giraud seem to be even more proud, twisted, self-serving and egotistical than most of their commanders, and totally out of touch with reality.
message 71:
by
Bentley, Group Founder, Leader, Chief
(last edited Sep 13, 2013 04:42PM)
(new)
-
rated it 5 stars
Mod
"To many American officers, the British proposal seemed designed to further London's imperial ambitions rather than win the war quickly. The Mediterranean for centuries had linked the United Kingdom with British interests in Egypt, the Persian Gulf, India, Australia, and the Far East. Old suspicions resurfaced in Washington that American bloom was to be shed in defense of the British empire, particularly after Japanese armies swept across Hong Kong, Singapore, and Burma to threaten India. U.S. Army officers recalled a bitter joke from 1917: that "AEF" stood not for "American Expeditionary Force" but for "After England Failed".
I thought that it showed a great deal of animosity carried over from World War I or do you think that this was an isolated spouting off by some disgruntled officers?
By all means, please add your take on this no matter where you are from - we want to hear global opinion.
There was a tremendous amount of anti-british feeling in the officer Corp and the United States. In 1927 the mayor of Chicago, Thompson, Told the voters at this time the biggest enemy the United States had was King George V of the United Kingdom. Thompson promised his supporters that if they ever met, Thompson would punch the king in the nose.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_...
Mod
Mod
Very bizarre , but played to the voters anti - british feelings.
Mod
Mod
Thank you.
Mod
This is sure to be an interesting journey Robert. Couldn't agree more.
Mod
"September 1, 1939, was the first day of a war that would last for 2,174 days, and it brought the first dead in a war that would claim an average of 27,600 lives ever..."
They really are. It was such a sad loss of life. So many young people - so many families affected.
Mod
It was Roosevelt's lending of destroyers to Great Britain under the quasi-rental Lend-Lease Program that created the precedent for such a demand to be made again ..."
Different times, different circumstances, different world players.
Patricrk wrote: "There was a tremendous amount of anti-british feeling in the officer Corp and the United States. In 1927 the mayor of Chicago, Thompson, Told the voters at this time the biggest enemy the United S..."I know a lot of people have a hard time wrapping their brains around the anti-British feeling in the country, but its important to remember the cozy relationship the US has with Britain is really a cause of our partnership in WWII, at least the way the relationship is now.
Mod
I'm behind on this read. Just started, but loving the writing so far. I'll see if I can't catch up some.
Kathy wrote: "I'm behind on this read. Just started, but loving the writing so far. I'll see if I can't catch up some."Great Kathy, it reads quite well.
Looked at my last post, Oct 29. Well I guess it really is time to read this book ~ I'll see if I can't get it read now that we have a lull in the group reads. Anyone else behind & willing to read along with me?
I fell behind also...I am on page 181 and would like to finish the book.
I got behind too....may join in.
actually page 284, my phone was not in sync with my Kindle
Nice! Thanks for joining back with me, Tom & Donna.
Mod
The History Book Club
Books mentioned in this topic
A Writer at War: A Soviet Journalist with the Red Army, 1941-1945 (other topics)An Army at Dawn: The War in North Africa, 1942-1943 (other topics)
Authors mentioned in this topic
Vasily Grossman (other topics)Winston S. Churchill (other topics)
Franklin Delano Roosevelt (other topics)
Dwight David Eisenhower (other topics)
Rick Atkinson (other topics)
Patton really did have a point about boots on the ground; even today there is always a time that you have to commit grounf forces, no matter the residual risk...
And no, the low level of preparation, supplies and equipment didn't surprise me at all. However, the brass should always think more when you put at stake the lives of so many men ...