The History Book Club discussion
This topic is about
Roosevelt's Centurions
PRESIDENTIAL SERIES
>
1. ROOSEVELT'S CENTURIONS - PREFACE, INTRODUCTION, CHAPTER ONE ~ (vii - 26) ~ MAY 28TH - JUNE 9TH; No Spoilers, Please
message 2:
by
Bentley, Group Founder, Leader, Chief
(last edited May 27, 2013 11:46PM)
(new)
-
rated it 4 stars
Mod
Preface
Joseph Persico identifies the basic questions that the book asks and will ponder about its commander in chief and his top military command (in this case FDR and Eisenhower, MacArthur, Patton, Marshall, Arnold, King). The stage is set for a discussion of all of these men, who they were, what they stood for, and their methodology for getting the job done and the war ended in our favor.
message 3:
by
Bentley, Group Founder, Leader, Chief
(last edited May 27, 2013 11:58PM)
(new)
-
rated it 4 stars
Mod
Introduction
On March 4, 1933, FDR was sworn in as President. The introduction provides FDR's background and his love of the military. On September 1, 1939 - FDR's world changed with a phone call that Germany had invaded Poland. Neutrality Laws, Lend Lease, Draft Extension, convoys would all become part of the fabric of FDR's approach. The author gives an overview of the series of events which opened up the drama of World War II which was described by the historian Max Hastings as the "most disastrous human experience in history."
message 4:
by
Bentley, Group Founder, Leader, Chief
(last edited May 28, 2013 12:00AM)
(new)
-
rated it 4 stars
Mod
Chapter One
Chapter One describes in detail "the day we almost lost the army" and how General George Marshall saved the day.
message 5:
by
Bentley, Group Founder, Leader, Chief
(last edited May 27, 2013 10:46PM)
(new)
-
rated it 4 stars
Mod
Section of Book: Preface
Joseph Persico opens his long awaited book Roosevelt's Centurions: FDR and the Commanders He Led to Victory in World War II with this quote:
"Wars are different now, but the human factors and forces at the highest levels change little."
Question for discussion:
After reading the Preface, what did this statement mean to you? How and why do you think that wars are different now? And why would Mr. Persico state that the "highest levels" have changed little?
Do you agree or disagree? Why or why not?
Mod
The author identifies what he calls "perennial issues"that confront America when we are challenged:
a) How should we fight our foes?
b) Where and when?
c) At what price?
d Who decides the wisest course when the best minds disagree?
e) Who should be our allies?
f) And what do we fight for?
Questions for discussion:
This book focuses on FDR and his top military command at a time when our country was facing World War II. That World War was different in many ways than the first one and is vastly different from what confrontations we face today as a nation.
What are the similarities and the differences in terms of how FDR and his military commanders would have answered these questions then and how our current President and his current top military command would answer them now?
Be specific and indicate in your answer which specific question or questions you are addressing.
message 7:
by
Bentley, Group Founder, Leader, Chief
(last edited May 28, 2013 12:02AM)
(new)
-
rated it 4 stars
Mod
The day before FDR died - he was at work on a Jefferson Day speech. His speech (if he had given it) would have stated as follows:
"Today we are part of the vast Allied force - a force composed of flesh and blood and steel and spirit - which is today destroying the makers of war, the breeders of hate in Europe, and in Asia."
"Today, science has brought all the different quarters of the globe so close together that it is impossible to isolate them one from another."
Questions for discussion:
a) What did Franklin Roosevelt mean in that speech about the "breeders of hate" - who was he talking about?
b) If FDR was giving the same speech today where would he see the problem areas and who would he think were the "breeders of hate"?
c) How is "war" a different entity altogether than it was during FDR's presidency?
I smile when I read how FDR thought that science had brought all of us so closely together?
d) What do you think FDR would have thought of the "global proximity" today - of the internet boom, of the different ways we communicate, weaponry, transportation and even drones?
e) What do you think that FDR would like best about our current military commanders and what do you think he would like least?
Mod
Every commander in chief has a set of "ideals" which seem to pilot the direction of his goals in terms of foreign policy, military conflicts and domestic policy.
The author states that FDR chose Eisenhower, MacArthur, Patton, Marshall, Arnold, King to fight for his ideals.
Questions for discussion:
a) What did FDR stand for? What were his "ideals" that he wanted these men to fight for? What do you think were the "ideals" of Truman who followed him or of Ike, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Bush Sr., Clinton, George W., Obama? How do the ideals of these men determine the objectives that the military commanders have to follow and fight for?
The author seems to place Eisenhower, MacArthur, and Patton in one category (distant and Olympian) or (distant and dimmed by time) for the second category which included Marshall, Arnold, King.
b) Do you agree with the categorization of these two groups? Why or why not? Why do you think each man was placed in one of these categories?
c) Prior to reading this book, what were you taught or what are your impressions of these commanders? Be specific about which one you are talking about.
Some of the questions that the author hopes to answer for you in the books are the following:
In terms of these commanders (Eisenhower, MacArthur, Patton, Marshall, Arnold, King):
1. Who were they?
2. How did they do what they did?
3. How they fought?
4. How they thought?
Question for discussion:
a) What are your first impressions of these men and what anecdotes would you like to share?
b) Do you think that the military commanders today have the same skill sets? Are they different - explain why and how. Are there differences in terms of character or outlook; how do you think the military force and its commanders are different today?
message 9:
by
Bentley, Group Founder, Leader, Chief
(last edited May 27, 2013 11:41PM)
(new)
-
rated it 4 stars
Mod
In the same Jefferson Day speech that FDR was not able to give because of his death, he was going to deliver this line:
"Today we are faced with the preeminent fact that, if civilization is to survive, we must cultivate the science of human relationships -- the ability of all peoples, of all kinds, to live together, in the same world at peace."
Questions for discussion:
a) When you read this powerful ideal, what comes to mind about the world and the war FDR was referring to versus what our current president (Barack Obama) is facing today?
b) How are the skillsets of the commanders in chief different and would either be able to cope in the other's world? Why or why not?
c) What advice do you think that President Obama would give to FDR? What advice and counsel would FDR give to today's President?
d) Do you think in today's world that a man in a wheel chair could become President? It should not make a difference with the electorate but do you think it would? How do you think the media would handle this disability?
e) Can you think of current military commanders who have the charisma and the star power that Roosevelt's Centurions had? Who are you thinking of and why?
Welcome everyone! Today we start our discussion journey with this exciting new release. Thanks again to Random House. So we begin.Bentley has opened this week's discussion with a series of thought provoking questions to kick off our discussion. What are your thoughts? How did you reflect on these opening pages?
message 11:
by
Bentley, Group Founder, Leader, Chief
(last edited May 28, 2013 07:57AM)
(new)
-
rated it 4 stars
Mod
I am not sure if all of our other folks have been able to acquire the book as yet because it is just released today. But folks may notice that the first week is extended into next so that everyone can start off on a level playing field - those who got the book this past month and those that acquired it on their own recently or will acquire it this week.
This book has been a long time coming and I know that I am extremely enthusiastic about it. I want the group members to know how hard the group has worked to get things going and to be prepared for this discussion. They have done a lot of work on the glossaries, the bibliography, setting up the toc and syllabus - all on very short notice.
We are happy to have all of you and please join in and contribute to the conversation as we move forward. This should be a fun journey - you are in good hands with Alisa.
I haven't got the book yet, I hope it will come soon (I ordered through Amazon, they are usually pretty fast once a book is out, but I haven't heard yet that they are sending it.
Mod
There are no worries - you can see that we anticipated some delays so we allowed for it. I look forward to reading your posts.
Persico has started this book with a wonderful insightful introduction. His choice of starting with General Marshall is wonderful. Most Americans I fear have no real sense of who he was and how important he was to the US winning WWII. Very good intro and to who General Marshall was and his manner of command. I was wondering during this introduction as to who might have been the driving force behind getting Marshall appointed to Chief of Staff. From the way MacArthur stood in his way I doubt it was him. Does anyone have any ideas on this. I was also pleasantly surprised to read that General Wadsworth was his great grandfather. I wonder how much of an influence this could have had on his decision to make the Army a career. I am certain that his stay at VMI would have been a major factor.
So many thoughts whirling around in my head after this brief introduction and Chapter 1 that I will have to stop and give them some time to form into some type of cogent questions or statements. Wonderful start to a great book long overdue on all these great men. Hopefully the author will tie all these men together into a cohesive working network.
Peter wrote: "I haven't got the book yet, I hope it will come soon (I ordered through Amazon, they are usually pretty fast once a book is out, but I haven't heard yet that they are sending it."Peter, we look forward to your participation and understand that some folks may not get their hands on this book for another few days. It is on the shelves in bookstores today so you should have it soon. The typical first week of discussion is open for an extended period to June 8th to give folks like yourself time to get the book, start reading, and join the discussion. From my perspective this book is quite reader friendly and easy to get into the book easily. We look forward to your participation.
Clayton wrote: "Persico has started this book with a wonderful insightful introduction. His choice of starting with General Marshall is wonderful. Most Americans I fear have no real sense of who he was and how imp..."Clayton good to hear from you and thanks for sharing your initial impression. Reading about Marshall and his long run up to becoming Chief of Staff was enlightening in so many ways. The author tells us early on that this book will be about relationships, and seeing how Marshall developed as career military as well as his demeanor was so interesting to me. This starting segment seemed to set the stage for how Marshall developed a relationship with FDR. What did you think of Marshall as a young man? The scene where he tailgated the White House visitors to get a chance to meet McKinley was a bold move, for a lot of reasons. Where did he get the nerve and boldness to do such a thing?
Mod
I think MacArthur was jealous of Marshall and wanted to keep him down. But that was my take - it would be interesting to hear what Joe Persico thought.
Also, dig into the discussion questions and kick off a dialogue. And get all of those whirling thoughts on the thread (smile)
Marshall had great lineage. And maybe all of these factors played into his decision to do what he did with his life. It is too bad that he did not become president - I think he would have been a great one.
The first chapter does a great job in setting up the major theme of a U.S. military that was understaffed and ill-prepared for a war on two fronts although certainly led by capable leaders all the way up to FDR.One aspect of chapter one I greatly enjoyed was reading about the easy passing of the initial wartime draft bill in 1940 and then the struggles it took to continue the draft a year later. I've never quite understood, however, how the specific draft worked. So there were 8300 numbers or so in a fishbowl and one number was drawn as the "winning" number. Did that mean every local draft board across the country immediately enlisted the local man with that number into the army?
message 19:
by
Bentley, Group Founder, Leader, Chief
(last edited May 28, 2013 03:41PM)
(new)
-
rated it 4 stars
Mod
This is an explanation for World War I and I think it occurred the same way when FDR did it for World War II
http://www.gjenvick.com/Military/Worl...
I also found this explanation about the process in World War II:
"To process the registrations and administer the draft, local draft boards were set up from coast to coast. Each of the 6,443 boards assigned each of the registrants in its district a number, then a national lottery was held to rank the registrants. In Washington, papers with the numbers 1 through 7,836 printed on them were put into capsules, one number to a capsule. The capsules were dumped into a giant fishbowl that had been used for the same purpose in the WWI draft. The capsules were then stirred with a wooden spoon fashioned from part of a beam from Philadelphia’s Independence Hall. Finally the capsules were drawn from the bowl one by one to establish the draft order. In a predictable photo opportunity staged on lottery day, October 29, 1940, a blindfolded Secretary of War Henry Stimson reached into the bowl and pulled out the first capsule. From a nearby podium, President Franklin Roosevelt announced the number drawn: 158. Across the country, 6,175 young men held that number.
All the men holding number 158 were brought in first by their local draft boards to be considered for service. Men holding the numbers that followed in the lottery were brought in until the services had their fill. All the men whose numbers were up received an “order to report for induction” from their local draft board. The letter named the branch of service the man was being called to and gave the date, time, and place where paperwork would be filled out and examinations given. A man had to be at least five feet tall and no taller than six and a half, be at least 105 pounds, have vision correctable with glasses, have at least half his teeth, not have been convicted of a crime, and be able to read and write.
There were several reasons a man might be sent home. Men who didn’t pass the medical examination were classified 4-F, physically unfit for service. Black men were passed over initially due to prejudiced questions about their ability to fight and worries that tensions between black and white servicemen might erupt. Men in certain occupations deemed essential to the war effort were excused so they could continue to do their work. And men with friends on their local draft board sometimes slipped through cracks.
The inductees who passed all the scrutiny were taken into the service right away. As the induction letter for 1941 stated, “Bring with you sufficient clothing for three days.” It may have felt like being hauled off to jail without the opportunity for bail. The next stop was a stateside military installation and then, for most, shipping off to Europe, Africa, or the Pacific.
Drafting continued through the war, though a lot changed after that first round in 1940. Among the obvious changes were the expansion of the age range to include men from 18 to 37, the elimination of restrictions on where in the world a man could be sent, the growth of the enlistment term to the duration of the war plus six months, and a growing tendency to overlook physical shortcomings. By war’s end some 35 million men had registered and 10 million were drafted. The draft had produced a military that could not only stand up to Germany and Japan, but could decisively defeat them."
Source: http://www.americainwwii.com/articles...
You also have to think it was a matter of logistical processing, they had to prioritize them somehow. Fishbowl and a wooden spoon, I guess that was the way to ensure randomness in the drawing. Some of course did not wait for their number to come up and enlisted in other military service if they did not want to go into the Army.
At this point, I don't feel I know enough to answer Bentleys' questions, but I do have a few comments (smile). With regard to Mr. Persico's break down of the Centurians as either 'distant and Olympian' or 'distant and dimmed by time' I agree largely because those who are 'Olympian' have had a greater and longer presence on the world political and governmental stage. Those who are 'dimmed' don't have the personal back stories which appeal to historians and the general reading public. This of course does not, should not, reflect on their contribution when they were on stage.
With regard to the posthumous Jefferson day speech, I think it shows us, along with his prior canon, that FDR, like Jefferson, was a man with a vision of the future and an awareness of the present. Against political argument, when he saw the Japanese build up their military, and the direction it was taking, as Mr. Persico's said, he created a 'true two ocean Navy'. He built up the Army even greater than Marshall's recommendation. And of course this is twenty twenty hindsight, but FDR had foresight. Can we say the same for any American leader in the past twenty five years? How can we know for the current president, but for prior presidents in that time period, with regard to global affairs, I don't think so.
message 23:
by
Bentley, Group Founder, Leader, Chief
(last edited May 29, 2013 06:45AM)
(new)
-
rated it 4 stars
Mod
G, the discussion question should stimulate posts about the ideas of the questions and with posting we can find the answers. Some of the quotes from the book are powerful statements which would be fun to debate. So you do not have to be absolutely correct to offer any opinions or thoughts on anything. Just jump right in as you have been doing.
You make a great point on the distinction between "Olympian" and "dimmed by time" - except I think in the case of George Marshall. I imagine that if he had become President which I think he should have over Ike then we might be discussing things a bit differently.
message 24:
by
Bentley, Group Founder, Leader, Chief
(last edited May 29, 2013 06:54AM)
(new)
-
rated it 4 stars
Mod
I think what I liked about FDR was that he was "steely" and that despite his physical limitations - his ideas about what to do and when to do it were limitless. And he seemed to be always in there plugging away at what he believed was the right thing to do even in the face of political obstacles. It did not seem the politics mattered to him even though I have to say he was keenly political. Given the current circumstances, and it may be too early to judge - but it is clear that the judgement calls may not stand the test of time as many of FDR's wartime decisions did. FDR, having been a Navy man - one can understand why he had a soft spot for that branch - but he did end up building up the army to even greater than Marshall's recommendations as you pointed out - however at Marshall's urgings which were very persuasive.
Bentley wrote: "G wrote: "With regard to the posthumous Jefferson day speech, I think it shows us, along with his prior canon, that FDR, like Jefferson, was a man with a vision of the future and an awareness of th..."The description of Marshall in front of Congress making his case for resources was impressive and enlightening. He displayed great resolve and a direct and plain speaking manner where politics pervades. I wonder how he would be received today by today's politicians.
G wrote: "At this point, I don't feel I know enough to answer Bentleys' questions, but I do have a few comments (smile). With regard to Mr. Persico's break down of the Centurians as either 'distant and Olymp..."Good point G. It will be interesting to see how the story unfolds of those who are less popularized but nonetheless mighty contributors. There are some big personalities in this group of Generals to be sure, and some of those stories have overshadowed others. As the author tells us in the Preface, this book is also about the relationships FDR had with these men. I suspect we will learn more about all of them through this lens.
Mod
The one thing that I though was inspiring and would be if anybody said this about an individual especially with it being said by a political member of Congress from another party - "You knew he was telling you the truth". To me that is an unbelievable legacy and character assessment to have.
Indeed, a good sign of respect.
message 29:
by
Bentley, Group Founder, Leader, Chief
(last edited May 29, 2013 09:24AM)
(new)
-
rated it 4 stars
Mod
who was telling the truth - unvarnished and without political maneuverings woven into the fabric of his testimony - no dancing with the facts.
And to answer your post - I think he would be able to break wide open the bitter partisanship in Congress today - but alas I have to wonder if we have those kind of men any more - or are we not emphasizing the importance of character and ethics in the right way in our homes and in our schools. Hard to tell.
There is an element of the more things change, the more they stay the same, as the author pointed out in the preface. I am referring to the sentence you quoted from the Preface - "Wars are different now, but the human factors and forces at the highest levels change little." We think the acrimony in Congress today is bad, in Chapter One here a fist fight breaks out in Congress over the draft bill. (p. 5). The fact that Marshall had their attention certainly bodes well for his leadership and character. I wonder if it will be possible to break through partisan rancor, and who can make those kind of inroads.
message 31:
by
Bentley, Group Founder, Leader, Chief
(last edited May 29, 2013 11:21AM)
(new)
-
rated it 4 stars
Mod
Unless Marshall is reincarnated - I guess the answer is I do not have much faith that Congress will not get in the way of itself - in essence a do nothing Congress. Most of what they have actually done lately have been the wrong things.
But referring back to the context of the question - I believe I was talking about wars and the highest levels of command.
Bentley wrote: "No, I think it was more than that. I think they recognized something better in him than themselves - a person without any ulterior motives who was telling the truth - unvarnished and without poli..."
I think we need to remember that Robert E. Lee was one of Marshall's heroes. Both men demonstrate the ideals of nobility of character: honesty, perseverance, willingness to sacrifice their own happiness for the greater good. It is a shame Marshall was not allowed to be Supreme Allied Commander in Europe. Perhaps then we would have seen if Marshall resembled Lee in his tactical and strategic brilliance.
Alisa wrote: "We think the acrimony in Congress today is bad, in Chapter One here a fist fight breaks out in Congress over the draft bill. (p. 5). "A little off topic but the mention of the fistfight, as well as the recent anniversary of Charles Sumner's caning, made me wonder when was the last physical altercation in Congress?
“Now seen as a marble man, a demigod, he was in fact all too human, and to understand him as he was – a man, not a myth…” (viii)Political leaders of the past have often been made into mythological figures that can never be imitated. The reader can never achieve the same greatness nor does he expect it from his current leaders. The fact that these past leaders were great but human, with human flaws is lost. This diminishes their accomplishments by making it appear they were something more then normal men.
I think that in large part, this is a problem of the past. Modern biographies are more apt to use gray rather than black and white.
Starting on page 13 of the introduction, Persico sets out his plan for the book, and his thesis. He lets us see the three major roles FDR took on toward the resolution of the conflict: chief human resources officer while recruiting the military men he needed to win the war (from the incredibly ethical Marshall to the flamboyant MacArthur - that's a relationship I'd like to know more about), chief strategist in planning the implementation of actions and deployment of personnel - supposedly leaving the tactical aspects to his military chiefs, and finally booster in chief on the home front. I really appreciated that Mr. Persico lays this out so clearly.
Mike wrote: "Alisa wrote: "We think the acrimony in Congress today is bad, in Chapter One here a fist fight breaks out in Congress over the draft bill. (p. 5). "A little off topic but the mention of the fistf..."
A quick search reveals that in the US Congress it looks like 1902 with a couple of state legislature incidents as recent as 2011!
More info here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legislat...
Mod
who was telling the truth - unvarnished ..."
I did not know that Steven - thank you for sharing - yes it would have been nice for him to get the opportunity.
G wrote: "Starting on page 13 of the introduction, Persico sets out his plan for the book, and his thesis. He lets us see the three major roles FDR took on toward the resolution of the conflict: chief human ..."It will be interesting to see how this evolves. I am fascinated by the relationships of all these men, big roles and personalities at a pivotal time in history. Ought to be interesting. We get a glimpse of this with Marshall and FDR establishing their relationship in Chapter one. What do you think of their early dynamic?
message 39:
by
Bentley, Group Founder, Leader, Chief
(last edited May 29, 2013 06:31PM)
(new)
-
rated it 4 stars
Mod
Political leaders of the past have often been made into mythologica..."
That is true Mike but I think some of what Congress said about the man puts him in a certain level - when was the last time you heard a Congressmen or Senator say of a representative sent by the other party - that we knew he was telling us the truth.
I also believe that the media allowed folks to be great and to show their better nature rather than to dig up anything at all to destroy a man and his life. It was a different time - there are maybe 3 photos that show FDR in a wheelchair - and the media didn't take them.
Honor and integrity meant something then.
In chapter one, our introduction to Marshall, as was mentioned above, shows that he was principled and respected for it. I wonder if that is why MacArthur clearly disliked him so much. And I wonder what drew Roosevelt to Marshall's equanimity. FDR must have had people around him who were recommending GM.
message 41:
by
Bentley, Group Founder, Leader, Chief
(last edited May 29, 2013 06:41PM)
(new)
-
rated it 4 stars
Mod
Political leaders of the past have often been made into mythologica..."
If we are allowed to see greatness and goodness in men and leaders (both men and women) then we will see it. However, the media, the 24/7 news pundits just want to pummel to death anybody who represents another point of view. It takes a special individual to want to even endure a primary never mind the presidency. I do think the military is still a place where they talk about honor and integrity and ethics and loyalty. When was the last time a school offered a civics class or talked about ethics. A lot of folks have made previous leaders iconic like Lincoln but they were not gods but men - but they were great ones nonetheless. FDR had his foibles and is dalliances - so he was not perfect.
Mike, you make a good point about seeing gray rather than to make everything black and white or cut and dry about a person. I wondered at how Petraeus unraveled with one false step. Or McChrystal.
Alisa wrote: "G wrote: "Starting on page 13 of the introduction, Persico sets out his plan for the book, and his thesis. He lets us see the three major roles FDR took on toward the resolution of the conflict: ch..."Was there much of an early dynamic? As detailed in the first chapter it was a surprise that Marshall was selected by FDR to be his Army Chief of Staff, and maybe he earned that selection based on his willingness to stand up to FDR.
Mod
Yes, he does G - I appreciated it too. You might want to pop over to the Q&A and ask about that relationship. Thank you posting the plan for the book and the thesis.
Bentley wrote: "Mike wrote: "“Now seen as a marble man, a demigod, he was in fact all too human, and to understand him as he was – a man, not a myth…” (viii)Political leaders of the past have often been made int..."
I agree, I don't know why anyone would want to subject themselves to the 24-hour news cycle that does nothing but look for reasons to pounce. I think the environment we have created causes a different type of leader to come to the forefront. That's not necessarily bad, but it seems to work out that way.
Two unrelated items that struck me for the first week’s reading:I was interested in the similarities between FDR and his older (distant) cousin, Teddy. Not only were both the Assistant Secretary of the Navy during wartime, both wanted to resign their office in order to fight. The difference being, Wilson would not allow FDR to resign, but McKinley had no hope of stopping Teddy. (xi).
I was surprised by Persico’s claim that “certain American generals, in a last-minute bid for glory, ordered their troops out of the trenches to face German Maxim machine guns hours, even minutes before the cease-fire set for 11 A.M.” (17) I was aware of the last minute American attacks, but I had never heard it was due to “a last-minute bid for glory.” However, I am far from an expert on the First World War. Has anyone read Persico’s Eleventh Month, Eleventh Day, Eleventh Hour: Armistice Day, 1918, World War I and Its Violent Climax? I imagine he discusses the subject at some length in that book.
by
Joseph E. Persico
Mike wrote: "Bentley wrote: "Mike wrote: "“Now seen as a marble man, a demigod, he was in fact all too human, and to understand him as he was – a man, not a myth…” (viii)Political leaders of the past have oft..."
On the flip side, the lack of 24x7 news coverage allowed FDR to slip away for a few days on the verge of the vote on the draft bill, without being hounded by the press. Hard to know if that is good or bad, but he seemed to take advantage of it.
Mod
Interesting Mike, I have not read the other book but maybe others who are participating in this discussion have and can comment.
Mod
I was asking that myself - how did that occur - that is a good question for Joe Persico on the Q&A thread. Obviously there was a connection or a recommendation of some sort or some meeting where FDR thought that was his man. I think Marshall's willingness to not be a yes man was something FDR was looking for alongwith sound judgement and integrity.
Just out of curiosity, the title of the thread says "No Spoilers." What exactly would be a spoiler? I think we all know how it ends.
The History Book Club
Books mentioned in this topic
Woodrow Wilson: A Biography (other topics)Redeeming the Time: A People's History of the 1920s and The New Deal (other topics)
Redeeming the Time: A People's History of the 1920s and The New Deal (other topics)
The Versailles Treaty and its Legacy: The Failure of the Wilsonian Vision (other topics)
The Versailles Treaty and its Legacy: The Failure of the Wilsonian Vision (other topics)
More...
Authors mentioned in this topic
John Milton Cooper Jr. (other topics)Page Smith (other topics)
Page Smith (other topics)
Norman A. Graebner (other topics)
Stephen W. Sears (other topics)
More...
For the weeks of May 28th - June 9th, we are reading the Preface, Introduction and Chapter One of Roosevelt's Centurions. We are giving a little extra time up front because we want to make sure that the books are received on time and that folks also have a chance to get their pre-ordered book just in case they were not one of the lucky recipients. The moderators are just receiving their books so we have to do some preparation - and our motto at The History Book Club is that it is never too late to begin a book. We are with you the entire way.
The first week's reading assignment is:
Week One - May 28th - June 9th -> Preface, Introduction, and Chapter ONE, p. vii - 26
Preface, Introduction, and ONE - The Day We Almost Lost the Army:
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 May 28th. 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,
~Bentley
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.
Glossary Part One:
http://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/8...
Glossary 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 author 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...
Book as a Whole and Final Thoughts - SPOILER THREAD
http://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/1...