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
Peter wrote: "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 mi..."MacArthur is one big ego in a crowded room and how that plays out among the other commanders who each have their own strong will is bound to create friction. Marshall on the other hand seemed like a guy with little pretense and was greatly admired. I can see how MacArthur would find him threatening.
Great point, Jill. FDR had a lot of voices to listen to, including his own.
The question I have concerning FDR's decisions against the military minds is... Where they better military choices OR were they political decisions that in some way enhanced FDR's political agenda?
Andrea wrote: "Just finished Chapter 1. Just judging by the intro and this one chapter, the book really hits the ground running setting a broad stage for how these very different personalities came together to ma..."Andrea glad to have you along and jumping in with your thoughts. It is very readable, I agree. Great comment, glad you are enjoying it so far.
Jim wrote: "The question I have concerning FDR's decisions against the military minds is... Where they better military choices OR were they political decisions that in some way enhanced FDR's political agenda?"Good question. How will you know? There must be a variety of influences that go into every decision he made.
Alisa wrote: "Peter wrote: "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 ..."Oh my, MacArthur was the supreme egoist and as we go further into the book we will see, I'm sure, just how arrogant he was. He is one of those military leaders that you either love or hate, but working with him on a daily basis would be a chore. I think he saw Marshall's cool demeanor and military talents and was envious, so he attempted to block him at every turn.
There is a joke about FDR.He was meeting with someone and Eleanor was there. He told the guy "You're absolutely right about that".
Then another man gave opposite advice and FDR said "You're absolutely right about that".
Then Eleanor said "You just agreed with two people who said opposite things!"
And FDR said
"You're absolutely right about that!"
Peter wrote: "There is a joke about FDR.He was meeting with someone and Eleanor was there. He told the guy "You're absolutely right about that".
Then another man gave opposite advice and FDR said "You're abso..."
Funny, Peter. You have some good quips. That was a fun one.
message 110:
by
Bentley, Group Founder, Leader, Chief
(last edited Jun 01, 2013 05:14PM)
(new)
-
rated it 4 stars
Mod
Great post Mark. Mark - you are right about the uninformed electorate - instead of choosing a brilliant man or woman who can grasp and cope with the information overload (and that is saying a lot) and further a person who does not shoot from the hip - sometimes they have chosen the person they would like to have a beer with - for President! (smile).
Seriously, when the President controls nuclear capabilities I think I want one who is not at a bar or is a maverick with impulsive tendencies trying to prove themselves. In my case - I want one who is sober, relentless in the pursuit of peace and the welfare of the country's citizens and concerned about the world and our place in it. Brain power is a pre-requisite - not a nice to have.
I like your thoughtful approach in discussing these ideas.
Mod
Great question Jim - Mr. Persico is answering questions on the Q&A and I would love to hear his perspective - you have to wonder.
Florence, appreciate the book but am moving your post to the bibliography thread for the book discussions. As well, please always follow our citation format of book cover, author photo when available, and author link. This thread is for discussing content of what is covered I the related pages for the week. Thanks.
Perhaps the greatest characteristic of both FDR and Churchill was their indomitable spirit. On page XVI of the Introduction, FDR says: "the American people...will win through to absolute victory." Perhaps others might have said the same thing at the time. But FDR and Churchill actually believed it and conveyed the sentiment with such conviction and confidence so as to rally their people's behind their leadership. During the darkest days of the war, lesser men may have been greatly tempted to sue for a negotiated peace that may have left Germany and Japan holding far too much sway in the world. But those thoughts never entered the minds of FDR and WC. The Allies were exceedingly fortunate to have these men in power at this juncture in history. On the same page in the Introduction, we are told of FDR's commitment to an unconditional surrender on the part of the Axis powers. It seems to have caused a measure of consternation on the part of a number of people throughout the war. I believe it was the right position to take. Yes, it may have stiffened the resistance of the Germans and caused them to think they had nothing to lose by continuing the fight. But I believe it also gave great confidence and courage to the American people during the early days when things were not looking good. How much confidence would our nation have had during those days if they thought they were sacrificing and dying for a cause that might end in some sort of negotiated settlement or inconclusive result? Additionally, it also mentions the possibility of an atomic bomb on page XVI. On hind sight, a very controversial issue indeed. But at the time, they didn't really know the full ramifications of atomic weapons. They were also reasonably certain that Germany was also developing a similar powerful weapon. I'm not sure, as terrible as the outcome has been, what other option they could have realistically pursued, at least in their minds.
Alisa wrote: "Florence, appreciate the book but am moving your post to the bibliography thread for the book discussions. As well, please always follow our citation format of book cover, author photo when availab..."I am trying to get the hang of it! I'm sure it just takes a bit of practice.
Florence wrote: "Alisa wrote: "Florence, appreciate the book but am moving your post to the bibliography thread for the book discussions. As well, please always follow our citation format of book cover, author phot..."You will get there. Let us know if you need a hand we are here to help.
Lewis wrote: "Perhaps the greatest characteristic of both FDR and Churchill was their indomitable spirit. On page XVI of the Introduction, FDR says: "the American people...will win through to absolute victory." ..."Very thoughtful comments, Lewis. Your note highlights the need to rally the home front. No leader could have made these hard decisions without support at home as well as the allies.
message 118:
by
Bentley, Group Founder, Leader, Chief
(last edited Jun 01, 2013 06:47PM)
(new)
-
rated it 4 stars
Mod
At 99 Lewis wrote: "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..."
I see it a little differently.
I'm totally with you in thinking that FDR (or any president) needs the best military minds available to him--and his responsibility IS to listen to them closely and give all due consideration to their professional recommendations. As you point out, they ARE the professionals.
However...
No spoilers---but long. I tucked it away so as not to disrupt the conversation flow. (Please advice me, Bentley, if you would have me do differently.)
(view spoiler)
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..."
I see it a little differently.
I'm totally with you in thinking that FDR (or any president) needs the best military minds available to him--and his responsibility IS to listen to them closely and give all due consideration to their professional recommendations. As you point out, they ARE the professionals.
However...
No spoilers---but long. I tucked it away so as not to disrupt the conversation flow. (Please advice me, Bentley, if you would have me do differently.)
(view spoiler)
Mod
They were both between a rock and a hard place. You have to think that having two men like FDR and Churchill working at that time together proves that it was meant to be. What are the chances of two such men connecting on something so vastly important as getting their countries through such a difficult time.
Very insightful, Lewis. Part of the reason given for the rise of the Nazi party was the German unconditional surrender in WWI....the "stab in the back". And, in WWII, it may have driven the Germans to fight on when the cause was lost but the strength of FDR's convictions that it was the only way is just another sign of his leadership skills. Unconditional surrender was not a popular concept after the fiasco of the Versailles Treaty but FDR prevailed.
Mod
That a civilian ..."
Excellent post Adelle and you did not have any spoilers and I appreciate your not disturbing the flow of the conversation. I like your last line about FDR having the Big Picture and that the military men might only have the war plans and the military one. Good thinking.
Adelle wrote: "At 99 Lewis wrote: "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 ..."
Adelle, there are not any actual spoilers in your longer post, it is long, and goes a little far afield of this week's pages in that some of your questions may be answered in the weeks ahead. All very valid points however. My suggestion is you take another look and perhaps edit your longer comments a bit to make them more pertinent to the pages being discussed. Love it that you are contributing to the discussion, and thinking deeply about the issues and topics presented in the book. That is precisely why we are here to discuss.
Alisa wrote: "Peter wrote: "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 ..."
He had an ego.
But I really liked MacArthur. From my reading --- and I'm trying to stick here with THIS book -- I think MacArthur played a greater role that he has been credited with.
As someone posted earlier, MacArthur tends to enlist strong feelings one way or the other. :)
He had an ego.
But I really liked MacArthur. From my reading --- and I'm trying to stick here with THIS book -- I think MacArthur played a greater role that he has been credited with.
As someone posted earlier, MacArthur tends to enlist strong feelings one way or the other. :)
Persico makes the following statement near the end of Chapter One: "'The situation had resulted in the accumulation of large numbers of these senior officers who I felt were not suitable for combat command,' Marshall concluded...Marshall kept his job and went on to force out nearly three quarters of division and corps commanders whom he judged over the hill.”I'm not sure how many divisions the US had at this time; it had 35 by January 1942, shortly after Pearl Harbor.
Marshall's action was one that American commanders have often wanted to do but which few have been permitted to carry out. George McClellan, who was Abraham Lincoln's general-in-chief in the early part of the war and who was later commander of the Union's most important field army, The Army of the Potomac, fought with Lincoln to remove many of his corps commanders and replace them with officers in whom McClellan had more confidence. But McClellan had only limited success convincing his President.
Marshall's hero, Robert E. Lee, McClellan's opposite number as Confederate General-in-Chief and commander of its most important field army, The Army of Northern Virginia (ANV), had greater luck in culling out the deadwood to make way for younger, more able commanders. According to historian Stephen W. Sears, following Lee's first campaign at the reins of the ANV, known as the Seven Days' Campaign, “Of the six major commands with which he opened the Seven Days, he would remove the commanders of three of them…"
Lee's next opponent, Union General John Pope, complained to his general-in-chief of the need to remove deadwood, and was promised that there would be an army reorganization after the Second Manassas Campaign, but Pope lost his army to arch rival McClellan before this could happen.
Of course one always wonders whether a commander who is given carte blanch to pick his own subordinate officers is really picking the best officers or whether he is on the one hand giving exercise to his own prejudices or on the other hand indulging his own desire for power by picking men who will consequently be beholden to him.
In Marshall's case we can be fairly certain that he had the highest motives because when he asked Roosevelt to grant his request, he selflessly put his own head on the chopping block by tendering his own resignation because he was also an older officer. Luckily Roosevelt empowered Marshall but refused to accept Marshall's resignation as payment.
by
Stephen W. Sears
I like big personalities. They give you a lot to think about! At some level a necessary quality in a military leader, or a commander in chief.
Steven wrote: "Persico makes the following statement near the end of Chapter One: "'The situation had resulted in the accumulation of large numbers of these senior officers who I felt were not suitable for combat..."Interesting analysis, Steven. I found it somewhat ironic that a career military man like Marshall was weeding out other career military men who he thought were too long in the tooth, but maybe only a few years in longer than himself.
Mod
Got to love Marshall - wished he had been president. He did have the highest motives - good post Steven.
Great points and thoughts, Adelle! Gives us a glimpse into the complexity of what FDR and others had to deal with. All I can say is...I sure am glad it was not me sitting in his seat...
A few pages into chapter one (page 31 on my e-reader), Perisco writes that the 12-month terms of service were running out and that Congressman Wadsworth introduced a House Resolution to extend the terms.
I wonder if terms are often promised with relatively short terms in order to encourage enlistment.
I recall that during the Revolutionary War General Washing's troops, too, had been signed up with relatively short terms. The men wanted to leave when their enlistment was up. Washington still needed them. In at least one case, the men agreed to keep serving an additional 6 weeks at Washington's request.
http://www.revolutionarywararchives.o...
More recently, the tours of soldiers and National Guard have been extended past the original date of discharge.
More recently,
I wonder if terms are often promised with relatively short terms in order to encourage enlistment.
I recall that during the Revolutionary War General Washing's troops, too, had been signed up with relatively short terms. The men wanted to leave when their enlistment was up. Washington still needed them. In at least one case, the men agreed to keep serving an additional 6 weeks at Washington's request.
http://www.revolutionarywararchives.o...
More recently, the tours of soldiers and National Guard have been extended past the original date of discharge.
More recently,
Adelle wrote: "A few pages into chapter one (page 31 on my e-reader), Perisco writes that the 12-month terms of service were running out and that Congressman Wadsworth introduced a House Resolution to extend the ..."I am sure it varied with the times depending on funding, defense needs, etc. there is some great info in the glossary about the draft bills referenced in this section on the book.
I find it interesting the way Congressional Bills are so positively given names to emotionally appeal to the constituency.
Andrew Jackson May introduces his bill ("Millions for Defense")
This probably WOULD help influence popular opinion. Though seemingly wrongly attributed, the phrase "Millions for defense, not one penny for tribute." would have reminded the American people of Thomas Jefferson and his stance against pirates... An early version of the US standing up for itself. Probably influenced people to feel patriotic and probably prompted some of them to write their congressmen: Pass this bill.
As close as the vote was, every little bit helped.
Makes one consider the role of popular opinion and to what lengths politicians will go to to influence it.
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/ind...
Andrew Jackson May introduces his bill ("Millions for Defense")
This probably WOULD help influence popular opinion. Though seemingly wrongly attributed, the phrase "Millions for defense, not one penny for tribute." would have reminded the American people of Thomas Jefferson and his stance against pirates... An early version of the US standing up for itself. Probably influenced people to feel patriotic and probably prompted some of them to write their congressmen: Pass this bill.
As close as the vote was, every little bit helped.
Makes one consider the role of popular opinion and to what lengths politicians will go to to influence it.
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/ind...
Adelle wrote: "I find it interesting the way Congressional Bills are so positively given names to emotionally appeal to the constituency. Andrew Jackson May introduces his bill ("Millions for Defense")
This p..."
Ok, but not an influence as it applies to the situation addressed in these pages.
Ah. A similarity between Marshall and MacArthur. Perisco writes that Marshall's father " began an aggressive campaign to help his son, buttonholing anyone wirh whom he had the slightest political connection."
MacArthur's mother did pretty much the same thing for him.
And FDR's mother adored him. You may remember reading that she moved to Boston to be near him while he attended Harvard.
Three amazingly strong confident men with incredibly supporting parents. Coincidence?
MacArthur's mother did pretty much the same thing for him.
And FDR's mother adored him. You may remember reading that she moved to Boston to be near him while he attended Harvard.
Three amazingly strong confident men with incredibly supporting parents. Coincidence?
Lewis wrote: "All I can say is...I sure am glad it was not me sitting in his seat..."
Me, too, Lewis! Me, too!
Me, too, Lewis! Me, too!
Alisa wrote: "..there is some great info in the glossary about the draft bills referenced in this section on the book. "
Thanks, Alisa. I saw that there is a wealth of information there. I was thinking that maybe I could alternate...a little Centurions...a little Glossary. I have a plan ;).
Thanks, Alisa. I saw that there is a wealth of information there. I was thinking that maybe I could alternate...a little Centurions...a little Glossary. I have a plan ;).
Folks please keep your comments relevant to only the topics, events, and people mentioned in the specific pages of the weekly threads. Ancillary information items and discussion can occur on the glossary. We want to keep the dialogue relevant to the pages so that everyone reading can discuss it together. Thanks all!
Alisa wrote: "Ok, but not an influence as it applies to the situation addressed in these pages..."
Mmm. This is the post-- more than any other I posted this evening-- I thought I backed up as an influence, ie, the importance of popular opinion especially on close votes---which was noted in the book.
I take your point though.
Mmm. This is the post-- more than any other I posted this evening-- I thought I backed up as an influence, ie, the importance of popular opinion especially on close votes---which was noted in the book.
I take your point though.
Adelle wrote: "Alisa wrote: "Ok, but not an influence as it applies to the situation addressed in these pages..."Mmm. This is the post-- more than any other I posted this evening-- I thought I backed up as an ..."
I get your point. It was the reference to Andrew Jackson that was a little far afield.
Lewis wrote: "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 w..."
I can't say much here because it would be getting ahead of Chapter 1--that's the problem with these broad statements that Mr. Persico makes in the Preface and Introduction--but you have to remember, Lewis, that FDR had allies, and those allies had military counsel. FDR would not have to be acting totally alone, nor going against all military counsel when he contradicted his highest US military advisors.
Mod
Page XVII of the Introduction raises the question of whether FDR's decisions "hastened victory...or whether they delayed the end..."It's an interesting comment and question and way to approach the study of a major war in history. Given the complexity of WWII, with its multiple participants, several areas of conflict or fronts, and its variety of warfare (naval, air, ground combat), it does make for an interesting study with plenty of opportunity to speculate and second guess what may have been. And given the varied personalities and goals of the leaders involved, there is further complexity and intrigue thrown into the mix...an author of history's dream, I suppose.
Alisa wrote: "...It was the reference to Andrew Jackson that was a little far afield. "
"Andrew Jackson May" is named in chapter one as the man who introduced the bill, "Millions for Defence"...
Nonetheless, I take your point.
"Andrew Jackson May" is named in chapter one as the man who introduced the bill, "Millions for Defence"...
Nonetheless, I take your point.
Lewis wrote: "Page XVII of the Introduction raises the question of whether FDR's decisions "hastened victory...or whether they delayed the end..."It's an interesting comment and question and way to approach the..."
Exactly. We shall see what's in store in the pages ahead.
Bentley wrote: "Steven, you can still discuss the Preface, the Introduction and Chapter One here - even the broad statements that are there - but just not become expansive beyond those on a non spoiler thread but ..."I wanted to address Lewis' question in this thread because that is where he made it. His question and my answer both address Mr. Persico's statement made in the sections covered in this discussion thread, however, a full answer to Lewis' question would involve mentioning details that Mr. Persico presumably covers in succeeding chapters because of the time period involved. That is why I gave a very general answer.
Nevertheless, thank you for pointing out these other threads. I was not aware of all of them.
Mod
Weekly non spoiler threads - not. But within each book discussion we have a bunch of spoiler threads where like minded folks can go to be expansive and that is why we point them out.
And I agree your response was germane. And I also agree with how you handled it - good job.
Finished Chapter 1--The Day We Almost Lost the Army. A synopsis of the 1940 draft renewal debate and the early career of George Marshall.Finishe Chapter 2--An End of Neutrality. A synopsis of the efforts to aid Great Britain culminating in the Passage of Lend-Lease.
Text has a nice smooth clear flow. (on page 55 of 672)
Phillip wrote: "Finished Chapter 1--The Day We Almost Lost the Army. A synopsis of the 1940 draft renewal debate and the early career of George Marshall.Finishe Chapter 2--An End of Neutrality. A synopsis of the ..."
Phillip, glad you are making progress.
This particular thread is to discuss only up through the end of Chapter One. We will open a discussion thread for Chapter Two on June 8th. We're giving people time to get through these early pages since the book was recently released. We look forward to your thoughts. Please be mindful that the weekly threads are non-spoiler threads, meaning only those topics in the relevant pages should be discussed on that thread.
I like the way Persico introduces us to George Marshall beginning on page 12, chapter 1. He has done so in a way that is not disruptive to the flow of the story and in a way that heightens our interest in this new character in the story. A nice and pleasing way to bring new personalities into the narrative.
Lewis wrote: "I like the way Persico introduces us to George Marshall beginning on page 12, chapter 1. He has done so in a way that is not disruptive to the flow of the story and in a way that heightens our inte..."I agree, a good intro to help understand some background about who he is, and provides some foundation for understanding his approach and demeanor.
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...
That a civilian Commander in Chief w..."
Interesting point. It tells us something about FDR's definition of a Commander in Chief. How involved do we expect our Commander in Chief to be with day to day decisions? Otherwise isn't the role essentially a military administrator? Shouldn't the president question the advise he is given? How FDR took the reins is a product of who he is, and defines the role of Commander in Chief in his own way.