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
Mike wrote: "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 'no spoiler' designation means the thread is limited to the pages covered in that specific week's threads or earlier. So in this thread we are only discussing the text in the Preface, Introduction, and Chapter One. Each week has specific page limitations. There will also be a thread where people can leave their comments on the book as a whole.
Mod
G, it would be interesting to know who championed Marshall to FDR. It clearly wasn't MacArthur - ego, power struggle, something was at play there.
Bentley has certainly stoked my interest in this book even further with those compelling questions! I'm eager to jump in and learn something with the group.My pre-ordered book arrived today, didn't have a chance to pick it up but shall be doing so with some celerity tomorrow afternoon.
Mark wrote: "Bentley has certainly stoked my interest in this book even further with those compelling questions! I'm eager to jump in and learn something with the group.My pre-ordered book arrived today, didn..."
Mark, glad to hear you have your book in hand. This first segment will run until June 8th so you have time to get started early in the discussion. We look forward to your posts.
Mod
My pre-ordered book arrived today, didn..."
That is great Mark. We hope you jump right in. Glad the book arrived for you today.
Nathan wrote: "Really enjoying the anecdotes so far in this first chapter. The fact that the vote for lengthening the stay of the draft appointments was only kept due to an error in word choice, recapitulation v..."The devil is in the details! No kidding, things could have turned out so different. The benefit of looking back in time is seeing exactly these types of seemingly small distinctions that otherwise might make a big difference.
Glad you are enjoying the book and good to see you in the discussion.
Mod
Very important vote and a cliff hanger. I am delighted that you are enjoying the book so far. That is terrific.
message 60:
by
Bentley, Group Founder, Leader, Chief
(last edited May 30, 2013 01:37PM)
(new)
-
rated it 4 stars
Mod
Just make sure to put the word Question in bold before your question so he can get to your question right away if he has limited time.
Like this:
Mr. Persico I am thrilled that you are joining us for this discussion, I have a couple of questions.
Question: Put first question here.
Question: Put second question here.
Here is the link to the Q&A thread:
http://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/8...
My source for my earlier comment about Robert E. Lee being Marshall's hero was
by Andrew Roberts who says: “Marshall’s hero and role model was the Confederate leader Robert E. Lee..." and "[During the war] pictures of his heroes Robert E. Lee and George Washington adorned the walls of [Mars hall's Leesburg, VA] house, as they do today.”
Steven wrote: "My source for my earlier comment about Robert E. Lee being Marshall's hero was by Andr..."Steven, please put your book citation at the end of the text for easier reading. Thank you.
As much as I have read about WWII, I had no idea that there were 60 nations involved in the war (pg xvii Introduction). It may be that "involved" does not mean as an active military participant but possibly making ports available for refueling of navies. For example. Portugal was aligned with the Allies but was declared neutral,although she kept what was an "armed neutrality" to protect against invasion.
message 63:
by
Bentley, Group Founder, Leader, Chief
(last edited May 31, 2013 09:39AM)
(new)
-
rated it 4 stars
Mod
Hello Jim,
Thank you for joining us. Remember this thread is only to discuss the Preface, the Introduction and Chapter One. This is a non spoiler thread. So if is not in those pages it should not be discussed here.
Once we get to next week's thread then you can discuss whatever is assigned for that week and the week before. So as we move along - the non spoiler threads are open for discussion on what the assigned pages are for that week and anything on any page prior to the last page assigned for that week's reading.
Also, if you have source material AND it does not deal with this week's reading then at all times that source material must go into a spoiler thread. Books and sources should be posted in the bibliography thread or if it is additional source information it should be posted in the glossary. All of those threads are SPOILER threads and are used for those purposes.
Message one on each weekly non spoiler thread always has links to those sources.
But here they are:
Glossary One: - SPOILER THREAD
http://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/8...
Glossary Two: - SPOILER THREAD
http://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/1...
Bibliography: SPOILER THREAD
http://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/1...
Also, another spoiler thread will be the Book as a Whole thread.
All spoilers will be moved to one of the above threads.
Mod
The above post referencing other books need to have citations and it needs to be on one of the spoiler threads. I will move.
message 65:
by
Bentley, Group Founder, Leader, Chief
(last edited May 31, 2013 10:15AM)
(new)
-
rated it 4 stars
Mod
Jim - same issue with this post - your citations are missing and parts of your response would be better in the Glossary thread or Bibliography thread and you must cite the sources using our citation rule.
These are in the process of being moved. They have great background information but should not be here.
This segment of what you posted is fine here:
Jim Dingeman stated:
Marshall has important staff jobs after WW I, including close work with Pershing when he was chief of staff..when Marshall was at Fort Benning it was later noted he kept a running diary of talented young officers he met or observed.
He worked closely on the War Plans in the late thirties and this led to a famous meeting in 1938 with him and FDR at the White House. He objected to a plan that was being argued about on logistic grounds and did this in front of FDR...this actually helped his career and FDR would eventually promote him to General in 1939. FDR was very savvy with his generals and admirals. He liked Marshall because he was such a contrast to the highly politicized MacArthur, who he had shipped out of his post of Chief of Staff after he became President. By 1935 MacArthur was in the Philippines and out of FDR's hair...he always would view him as a political rival and the most politicized of his generals who would be thrust forward by disgruntled elements of the Republican Part in 1944 and 1948 as a presidential candidate. This Marshall would never do.
message 66:
by
Bentley, Group Founder, Leader, Chief
(last edited May 31, 2013 10:46AM)
(new)
-
rated it 4 stars
Mod
Jim absolutely outstanding glossary and bibliography information - same issue - citations are missing, much of the info belongs in our glossary and bibliography threads. I am moving the parts that should be moved over to those threads.
message 67:
by
Bentley, Group Founder, Leader, Chief
(last edited May 31, 2013 10:49AM)
(new)
-
rated it 4 stars
Mod
The Campaign in Poland shocked the leadership of the US military and everybody else at the time...this was before the bigger shock of t]he events spring 1940 campaign in Western Europe that led to the fall of France, Norway, Denmark,Holland, and Belgium.
Remainder of the above post moved to the Bibliography thread where books sourced or noted to assist the group members with additional background information should be posted.
================================================
Jim as usual - great information - seek out the Mechanics of the Board thread and get those citations tackled.
message 68:
by
Bentley, Group Founder, Leader, Chief
(last edited May 31, 2013 11:01AM)
(new)
-
rated it 4 stars
Mod
This post has been moved to the Glossary.
Mod
Jim this has been moved to the Glossary thread. Great info but it is better placed there.
Mod
At 5 Bentley wrote: ."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?
"
This may have already answered by others...but I'm taking Bentley's advice and "jumping in". :)
I agree with the statement.
The technology is different today. Not simply in terms of how destructive or effective weapons of war are, but also taking into account the speed at which decisions have to be made. For example, in FDR's time, logistical information on which to make decisions would have to make its way to a location from which it could be shared with other commanders ... And then from which it could be telegraphed to FDR, etc. And then the return trip...FDR's oders being disseminated would take time.
Whereas today information reaches the highest level almost immediately. (Bengazai viewed in almost virtual time.). In some ways this is a positive good. But there are corresponding negatives as well. Yes, the information comes quickly. That speed puts pressure on the decision-makers to respond quickly... There is an argument to be made that not having enough time to process the information, to think it over for a while before issuing orders may be a negative.
Technology plays a role, too, in what information the citizens receive. In FDR's time, the citizens didn't have independent or real-time access to the news. For the most part they only learned what the newspaper or radio station in their vicinity told them. Some information that was deemed to be bad for morale was withheld. And even if when there wasn't censureship, photos would have been too costly to print many of in the papers. Therefore, only one or two battlefield photos might be printed. And they would have been in black and white. And no motion. And no sounds od screams and groans and weeping.
In addition, the world today really is I think.more globally aware than during WWII. Back then, most countries were more homogeneous. Whereas today, more people have worked in other countries or have visited other countries and met people there...or have friends or families from other countries. So when war breaks out today, people may be more apt(??) to see-- to a degree at least-- the point of view of "those people."
For instance, my husband is originally from a different country. Were the US to think about going to war with that country I would most likely be looking-- at least somewhat-- at that countries point of view...or thinking about what might happen to my husband's family and friends in that country.
But war at the highlest level, I would think, is still the same in that life and death decisions have to be made. In terms of lives and treasure, decisions must be made at high levels. What is the threat? Is is something that MUST be countered....or "only" something that really "should be" countered. What will it cost? And both then and now there there would be political considerations and public opinion to deal with.
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?
"
This may have already answered by others...but I'm taking Bentley's advice and "jumping in". :)
I agree with the statement.
The technology is different today. Not simply in terms of how destructive or effective weapons of war are, but also taking into account the speed at which decisions have to be made. For example, in FDR's time, logistical information on which to make decisions would have to make its way to a location from which it could be shared with other commanders ... And then from which it could be telegraphed to FDR, etc. And then the return trip...FDR's oders being disseminated would take time.
Whereas today information reaches the highest level almost immediately. (Bengazai viewed in almost virtual time.). In some ways this is a positive good. But there are corresponding negatives as well. Yes, the information comes quickly. That speed puts pressure on the decision-makers to respond quickly... There is an argument to be made that not having enough time to process the information, to think it over for a while before issuing orders may be a negative.
Technology plays a role, too, in what information the citizens receive. In FDR's time, the citizens didn't have independent or real-time access to the news. For the most part they only learned what the newspaper or radio station in their vicinity told them. Some information that was deemed to be bad for morale was withheld. And even if when there wasn't censureship, photos would have been too costly to print many of in the papers. Therefore, only one or two battlefield photos might be printed. And they would have been in black and white. And no motion. And no sounds od screams and groans and weeping.
In addition, the world today really is I think.more globally aware than during WWII. Back then, most countries were more homogeneous. Whereas today, more people have worked in other countries or have visited other countries and met people there...or have friends or families from other countries. So when war breaks out today, people may be more apt(??) to see-- to a degree at least-- the point of view of "those people."
For instance, my husband is originally from a different country. Were the US to think about going to war with that country I would most likely be looking-- at least somewhat-- at that countries point of view...or thinking about what might happen to my husband's family and friends in that country.
But war at the highlest level, I would think, is still the same in that life and death decisions have to be made. In terms of lives and treasure, decisions must be made at high levels. What is the threat? Is is something that MUST be countered....or "only" something that really "should be" countered. What will it cost? And both then and now there there would be political considerations and public opinion to deal with.
If a war broke out on the scale of WWII, it certainly would be different now. It is my considered opinion that there would be little to no military actions since the nuclear age ushered in the "pushing the button" mentality. Nuclear weapons as well as chemical and germ warfare would be used, so the use of soldiers on the ground and ships at sea would become superfluous. The wars being fought now around the world are on smaller scales and the threat of the above mentioned weapons exists but would become primary in a world war. At the highest level, I think the process would be pretty much the same but as Adelle mentioned, the delay in information would not be an issue. It would still incumbent upon higher levels to make decisions that are almost impossible to make But I feel strongly that if a world war erupted now, it would be the last.
Adelle wrote: "At 5 Bentley wrote: ."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 ..."
Adelle, great post and glad you are jumping into the discussion.
You articulate the challenges of modern day technology as compared with the technology of the time and highlight advantages and disadvantages to both. In a war the magnitude of WWII, the potential magnitude of information about what was happening and where was of a considerable scale. The challenge then for the Commander in Chief to synthesize it and make decisions which then get back to the field is a challenge of information flow and timing. I am sure we will see much more of this as the book unfolds, but even in this early segment of the book we are getting a taste of it.
I thought it interestingin Chapter One that there was limited public support for resourcing the Army. Did the majority of American people not see the threat? Very possible. Was it a matter of concern over the financial stability of the country coming out of a depression? That would certainly sway public opinion. WWI did not touch US soil, perhaps there was less of a public appetite to arm the country that they perceived was not under direct threat. Why worry about what is going on in another country if the homefront has enough to worry about? I think there is more of an awareness of what is going on in other parts of the world and how it impacts the country, but the question of when to go to war and for what reason still seems very much a lightening rod issue for people in the US. Enormous questions for a Commander in Chief to grapple with. We are told Roosevelt wants to have resources to lend to Britain, but his home front message is to maintain a strong Army with no hint of his private reasoning.
I am intersted to see more of this theme unfold in the weeks ahead.
Jill wrote: "If a war broke out on the scale of WWII, it certainly would be different now. It is my considered opinion that there would be little to no military actions since the nuclear age ushered in the "pus..."The nature of weaponry has changed and what is possible now could spell massive doom pretty quickly. While the delay in information relay is minimal, it stil has to get inthe right hands and through as few filters as possible. The faster the information can flow means the decisions and responses have to come much quicker to be effective. And at some point you can't have people on the ground waiting for a decision. It may make it harder today. But that is not to say FDR had the luxury of time either!
Many thanks, Jim, for the additional info, and to Bentley for posting that information to the glossary thread. Folks are encouraged to browse the glossary and contribute additional useful ancillary information there as well. The moderating team is regularly populating it as we go along, and we welcome additions and discussion on those items as well.
He certainly didn't but he seemed to have the reins in his hands to be able to act as quickly as possible. He had, or at least it appears in these first pages, an understanding of what was needed. He was familiar with the fact that the US was not prepared in WWI and he was not going to let that happen again
Jill wrote: "If a war broke out on the scale of WWII, it certainly would be different now. It is my considered opinion that there would be little to no military actions since the nuclear age ushered in the "pus..."A world war today would not necessarily involve germ warfare, chemical warfare, or nuclear warfare. There are many precedents supporting this conclusion. For example, chemical weapons were developed and used in WWI, but although both sides had them available in WWII, neither side resorted to them, not even when faced with total conquest. Sadam Husein had chemical weapons and perhaps germ warfare weapons as well, but he did not use them against the US.
There was a period of time in Japan's history when, following the introduction of firearms, the war lords repeatedly witnessed the horror to them of a supremely talented samurai warrior laid low by a lowly foot soldier armed with an early musket. This was so terrible to them that all the war lords agreed to cease using fire arms and fight only with the sword and pike, as they had done for centuries. This restraint existed for quite some time.
So some classes of weapons have been banned by mutual consent, whether formally agreed upon or not. It is impossible to predict in any given war which weapons will or will not be used.
Jill wrote: "He certainly didn't but he seemed to have the reins in his hands to be able to act as quickly as possible. He had, or at least it appears in these first pages, an understanding of what was needed. ..."So true. We are getting the early look at how much FDR was in control.
Bentley, Is it forbidden to cite other sources when making answers to the questions you are posing in this thread about the Preface, Introduction, and Chapter 1? If so, will that restriction exist for all the subsequent threads focused on succeeding chapters?
Adelle wrote: "At 5 Bentley wrote: ."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 ..."
Although Congress hasn't declared a war since World War II, United States Presidents have committed troops to military actions from 1950-53, 61-73, in the 1980s in Lebanon, Grenada and Panama, in the First Gulf War in 1991, Somalia, Bosnia and Kosovo in the 1990s and in Afghanistan (and Iraq) from 2001-on. For me, the author's statement sets up a thesis of comparing actions and leadership by FDR and his generals to something as current as President Obama appointing General Martin Dempsey as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
Steven wrote: "Bentley, Is it forbidden to cite other sources when making answers to the questions you are posing in this thread about the Preface, Introduction, and Chapter 1? If so, will that restriction exist..."
it is not forbidden. When you do cite another book you need to follow the club's format for book and author citations: book cover, author photo if available, and author link, using the add book/author feature above the comment box. You should always stick to the topics being discussed in the chapters/page numbers specific to eacy weekly thread. There is also the glossary where other sources are regularly posted regarding many of the players and topics mentioned in the book.
message 82:
by
Bentley, Group Founder, Leader, Chief
(last edited May 31, 2013 02:41PM)
(new)
-
rated it 4 stars
Mod
Question for discussion:
After reading the Preface, what did this statement ..."
Adele you raised so many valid points why war is different today as well as the ramifications. And one critical point about Benghazi - yes the news travels fast that there is an uprising but making a decision for a country and trying to evaluate what the dickens is going on takes time. And you do not go in like John Wayne with guns ablazing. You have to love politics nowadays and the 24x7 pundits.
And we are all part of a global community - so when one country acts up or a group of people - it affects everyone in one form or another or it will soon.
Great post Adelle.
Mod
Ominous Jill.
message 84:
by
Bentley, Group Founder, Leader, Chief
(last edited May 31, 2013 03:32PM)
(new)
-
rated it 4 stars
Mod
Is it forbidden to cite other sources when making answers to the questions you are posing in this thread about the Preface, Introduction, and Chapter 1? If so, will that restriction exist..."
Steven we have found aside from the moderator posting a speech or a telegram or a quick link - volumes of books alluded to stymies the flow of discussion and disrupts the flow and potentially makes folks feel a bit fearful of expressing their opinion if they are not experts. Nobody has to be an expert here so we welcome everybody's input. I think our posts to you above indicated what to do and what not. And we love having links and referential material on the glossary threads and the bibliography threads.
In your case I simply asked you to do a proper citation. And I think Jill another moderator assisted you as well. On the Q&A thread you are placing the author in a tough position if you are asking him to qualify someone's hypotheses or conclusions. Just ask the question as if it were a fact you had been considering and let the author answer it from his frame of reference and not one which if he disagreed would appear to be critical of somebody else's work.
Mod
Question for discussion:
After reading the Preface, what did ..."
Good parallel thinking Craig. I guess we shall see.
"Wars are different now, but the human factors and forces at the highest levels change little."I'm going to chime in on my take on this statement also.
Firstly I do agree, many reasons have been proffered in this thread already as to why war is different today - I think the most conspicuous point for me is the asymmetrical nature of today's conflicts.
Will we ever see the kind of massed, opposing armies facing off again as we saw in WW2? I find it hard to envision - the modern scenario of the insurgency war, or the "David vs Goliath" type of conflict seems likely to be the scenario played out for many years to come in my mind.
But I think we know the human condition changes little through the ages.
As was the case in FDR's time, and still today and beyond, a commander-in-chief will surely still have to wrestle with public opinion, the egos and conflicting nature of his commanders and his own human condition, with its accompanying capacity for misjudgment.
message 87:
by
Bentley, Group Founder, Leader, Chief
(last edited May 31, 2013 03:37PM)
(new)
-
rated it 4 stars
Mod
Mark, I am glad you just jumped in - please do this often.
Mark, the last paragraph of your post is the essense of what we are likely to see in this book. Intriguing how FDR seems keenly aware of how he is perceived, down to telling Cordell Hull to announce him as Commander in Chief. He seemed astutely aware of public perception and his ability to control it.
Mod
Bentley wrote: "Interesting post Mark - commanders in chief have all of the above to wrestle with to be sure but I do hope we strive to be better in our decisions and choose the high ground and our ideals versus r..."Well, I'm a native Brit residing in Canada Bentley, so the Canadian governmental system is something I am certainly no expert in, and have to learn more about.
Despite the similarities to my native government - there are of course technical and cultural differences.
However - it's been said that the Canadian Prime Minister arguably holds the most powerful office in any western democracy.
A quick examination of his powers is quite eye opening, with the hard-line party loyalty he commands and the powers afforded to him, it would seem he would have a much easier time imposing his will than is enjoyed by the U.S. President.
I too hope we strive to improve our decisions - but I feel that the human condition will always limit our ability as nations, to achieve the most efficient form of government for the people.
It's hard to even imagine a time where the personal ambitions of leaders, their egos, conflicting personalities, cultures and beliefs of those they represent - all coalesce into a completely harmonious system that truly represents the best possible system for the people as a whole.
Bentley, your mention of "pleasing an uninformed electorate" is a thought-provoking one, it's an idea that is taken for granted but once isolated and examined, is actually pretty scary.
To think that world leaders, imbued as they are with enormous power and privy to information the average citizen has no hope of knowing or comprehending - in essence have to conform, or indeed mostly have to conform to that "uninformed electorate" for those are the people that put them into the seat of power, and have the power to remove them.
It's scary because I'm sure you know, as I do - many people who may indeed cast a vote, but have absolutely no credible reason for their choice, let alone actively pursue knowledge on key issues.
I know I've been lax in this regard at times over the years, but I am open to improvement and look to employ more intellectual effort as it's all too easy to vegetate in front of a live national debate at the height of an election season, merely to say you watched it, or to enjoy some small entertainment from the verbal sparring.
It is of course much harder to form a well-reasoned opinion on the subjects discussed, and to cast a well-informed vote.
So far this discussion has been really stimulating for me, I am indeed aiming to get into the spirit of things as recommended and "jump in" where I can!
Bentley wrote: "Alisa, FDR was a master of public relations and delivery. You just have to listen to the Fireside Chats - he had a commanding voice and radio presence, he controlled the media in terms of photos o..."I'd never heard of the "Fireside Chats" until today Bentley, so thanks for that mention - I've listened to one subsequently and his eloquence and commanding tone is indeed evident.
Mod
https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/f...
We have a write-up on the Fireside Chats in Glossary Two - post 19. There is a lot of information there.
It is true - it comes across even in the audio - loud and clear.
The "Fireside Chats"........one of the great ideas for providing the citizens with a feeling of closeness with the President. They kept people glued to their radios.
message 94:
by
Bentley, Group Founder, Leader, Chief
(last edited May 31, 2013 07:34PM)
(new)
-
rated it 4 stars
Mod
My book arrived. I've finished Chapter 1. After reading it, I am further of the opinion that MacArthur had some serious psychological issues. I look forward to reading about whether his reputed military brilliance was real or not. Marshall, on the other hand, seems (and always did, to me) to be beyond reproach. Not flashy, not an egomaniac, but willing to tell the truth to his superiors and hugely competent.
message 96:
by
Bentley, Group Founder, Leader, Chief
(last edited Jun 01, 2013 05:22AM)
(new)
-
rated it 4 stars
Mod
Glad that the book arrived and you jumped right in. There are a lot of folks who might agree with you on that point and some who worshipped the man. He had built quite a reputation for brilliance but was known for his arrogance and obstinance. Marshall seemed to the constant one who faithfully delivered the news (both good and bad) in the same even and reliable way but when asked to do or set up the impossible accomplished it with brilliance and an even disposition; yet respectful and formal while doing so.
Try not to read ahead so that you can stay in pace with the assignments (you seemed to devour the first one) - the sign of a good book.
message 97:
by
Bentley, Group Founder, Leader, Chief
(last edited Jun 01, 2013 07:10AM)
(new)
-
rated it 4 stars
Mod
Jim the sources were great but that is why we have glossaries and bibliographies and we keep the discussion for the most part on these threads. And we have rules for citations which you are still not following. Your posts have been moved as we do for all such posts. And this is a weekly non spoiler thread - use one of the book's spoiler threads if you want to go ahead of where we are and talk about events coming up in the book. Yes we know the outcome of the war's events but we discuss them as they are discussed in the book. So rule of thumb - if it is a lengthy lists of books or books you might think would be good background reading then post on this book's bibliography thread. If you are posting background urls and links - then post them on the glossary thread. Both the bibliography thread and the glossary threads are SPOILER threads. And if the pace and format do not allow you to be as expansive as you want to be - then go to the Book as a Whole thread and discuss what you would like. We will always be there to respond. But you must learn how to do citations and for that you can go to the Mechanics of the Board thread and we will assist you there. All of the assisting moderators are here to help you.
But those are our rules and guidelines. Thank you for the information.
Page XV of the Introduction tells us that "FDR made over twenty major decisions that went 'against the advice, or over the protests of his military advisers.'" That a civilian Commander in Chief would make that many major military decisions against the counsel of the professional experts is striking (and perhaps scary) and tells us a lot about FDR's belief in himself. Once the Allies got cranked up and caught up to the military head start of Germany and Japan, I think the outcome became increasingly clear. But what if it had been a more even match...for example, what if Russia had stayed on Germany's side? Then you start wondering how bold, wise, or terribly dangerous it might have been for FDR to pursue his maverick ideas against all the conventional wisdom of the day. Mercifully, we didn't have to find out...
Mod
It does seem that many of FDRs ideas helped and assisted the war effort and our allies but you make a good point. Being that Joe Persico is assisting us on the Q&A thread - this is a great opportunity to sound him out on the above and/or hear from other group members who might want to weigh in.
Lewis......I like your thoughts on FDR's involvement in military decisions even though he surrounded himself with capable men with military experience. But as the author states, he was less meddlesome than Churchill who fired and transferred commanders, generals, et al, sometimes on what appeared to be a whim. FDR recognized the talents of men like Marshall and utilized them well but he took the title "commander-in-chief" literally and often flexed his muscles against the advice of his advisers. Your "what if" question makes one think.....if Russia stayed with Germany or if Britain fell....the alternatives are frightening.
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...
Yes, I was just responding to Craig about this questions. How did FDR choose Marshall - good question. I suggested popping over to the Q&A thread and asking the author.
I also wondered why MacArthur tried to hold Marshall back and he clearly did.