1. ROOSEVELT'S CENTURIONS - PREFACE, INTRODUCTION, CHAPTER ONE ~ (vii - 26) ~ MAY 28TH - JUNE 9TH; No Spoilers, Please

[Alisa]

Nathan wrote: "I wonder how much Pershing pushing for Marshall had to do with the animosity with MacArthur? Old guard versus the new."

That would be a good question to pose to the author in the Q&A thread. He answered a similar question about this. Jealousy and envy was a factor.

[Jill]

Nathan wrote: "I wonder how much Pershing pushing for Marshall had to do with the animosity with MacArthur? Old guard versus the new."

I feel that MacArthur was not willing to share the spotlight with anyone and his ego verged on psychopathy. Pershing's support (or anyone's support) for Marshall was unacceptable to him. He was a very complex person, wasn't he?

[Bentley, Group Founder, Leader, Chief]

Alisa wrote: "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 ..."

Alisa you mean to say that the weekly threads are NON SPOILER threads. - see message 150

[[deleted user]]

Jill wrote: http://..I feel that MacArthur was not willing to share the spotlight with anyone and his ego verged on psychopathy. Pershing's support (or anyone's support) for Marshall was unacceptable to him."

Are you basing that on something in the text?

Edit Added again. I have thought if a friendlier way to ask. I would ask, "why do you say that? ". For serious. There are strong opinions on both sides regarding MacArthur. I actually would like to know why your opinion of him is so negative.

Edit added: I don't mean for that to come off as abrasive. I just would like to know what your opinion is based on. Thanks.

[[deleted user]]

Nathan wrote: "I wonder how much Pershing pushing for Marshall had to do with the animosity with MacArthur? Old guard versus the new."

Marshall and Macarthur though were both born the same year. Both had served with distinction during WwI.

Pershing's animosity towards MacArthur...

I'm waiting to see if that will be explained. I did wonder if that fact that MacArthur had married the very wealthy socialite that Pershing was supposedly seeing might not have hurt the Pershing-MacArthur relationship?

(I realize that isn't in chapter one. But how can I address the question without posting pertinent information? And if I just leave the question standing, it seems to imply that the fault lay with MacArthur. Which hasn't been established yet in chapter 1 so far as I can tell.)

[Bentley, Group Founder, Leader, Chief]

There is a lot left unanswered because we are only in Chapter One and there is a lot left to come obviously. But remember we do have spoiler threads where you can have expansive discussions - like the Book as a Whole thread.

The following threads in the Roosevelt's Centurions folder are SPOILER threads so you can post books in the Bibliography thread, helpful links in the Glossary threads, expansive discussions, off topic comments and reviews in the Book as a Whole Thread, The Pre Discussion Chat and the Introduction thread are also SPOILER threads.

The only non spoiler threads are the weekly threads - one of which you are on now.

Hope this helps.

[Bentley, Group Founder, Leader, Chief]

Folks, I have copied the post that we have in the Help Desk folder which maybe some of you have not read. This clearly spells out what the moderator might do if your post is a spoiler or has a spoiler alert and is posted in a weekly non spoiler thread - this happens to everybody so we understand - but just be mindful that these are our posted rules and guidelines and we are here to get you up to speed if you are new. And if the moderator has not contacted you via post then you are doing just fine but I just want to post a more complete explanation for our newbies and for Mike who asked what constituted a spoiler.

Folks, everybody is doing just fine so just keep posting away (smile) - all of you are doing great.
===========================================

Here is a quick refresher of the spoiler policy and what is considered off topic or a spoiler. Goodness knows that we can all get engrossed in a discussion and then realize that it is off topic. In fact, it has happened to me.

If the discussion has nothing to do with the thread's declared topic and is clearly not even about the book being discussed or the pages and chapters assigned, that is a dead give away that the discussion should be moved to the Off Topic thread, the Glossary, the Book as a Whole or Final Thoughts threads, or any of the other supplemental threads which are not non spoiler.

It is really only the right thing to do; because we do not want to waste anybody's time. Whatever everyone can do to help accomodate this request is greatly appreciated. We are an active group so this should not be an issue.

There are threads on which you should not be discussing advance content of the book at all nor any subject not explicitly discussed in the assigned BOOKS, CHAPTERS, PAGES AND/OR SECTIONS. The weekly non spoiler threads are specifically non-spoiler specific and you must be careful about what is discussed there. You may have read these pages etc. and may be way ahead; but others have not caught up so on the weekly non spoiler threads you must not discuss anything other than the assigned chapters, pages, books, section or any pages that were read or assigned in previous week's assignments.

You will see BOOK/SECTION/CHAPTER/PAGES threads broken down by segment per week and each weekly non spoiler thread is clearly marked.

Remember what constitutes a spoiler may be different for different people, so your general opinions or extemporaneous discussions may give away more than you realize.

On the threads that will address specific portions of the book (Assigned by chapters, books, sections, pages), strict spoiler etiquette should be observed. You should avoid mentioning anything that happens in the portion of the book discussed beyond that which is under discussion. For example, in a Chapter Two segment thread you should not reference anything that occurs beyond Chapter Two. If this is unclear, please contact me. If you really feel you must allude to something from a later Chapter and Page, you MUST preface your comments with the header SPOILER ALERT in the subject line of your post or in the case of good reads in the first line of your post. What will happen with these is that they will be moved to the glossary or Book as a Whole threads or another spoiler supplemental thread which matches the topic.

If you do not know how to do this effectively on goodreads, let me know.

All other supplemental threads (including the Glossary and Book as a Whole threads) will be for discussion of major people, events and themes across the book so spoiler rules do not apply on these supplemental threads. However, even on these supplemental threads, the reader should not go off-topic. If we are talking about the definition of history and the discussion veers off topic to let us say World War II; then obviously that conversation should be moved Off Topic.

If you're reading along with the chapter/book/section/page-grouping schedule you may want to avoid all of these supplemental threads until you've finished the book.

Finally, if you come across a post that contains a spoiler, please do not get upset. It happens, in fact this has happened to me personally. We will try to bring the thread back to the topic politely and we hope you will help us out.

I think with a little patience on everyone's part that this will be an enjoyable experience for everyone. With a good group like we have, this should work out well.

The syllabus is updated regularly and the chapter and supplemental threads are identified. Additionally if you are on a supplemental thread and confused about its specific topics, please just look at the first post on each thread that I have posted and this will identify what topics are allowed on which thread.

Thank you so much for keeping this all straight and reader friendly for all of us.

Thanks for your cooperation in advance.

[Jill]

Adelle wrote: "Jill wrote: http://..I feel that MacArthur was not willing to share the spotlight with anyone and his ego verged on psychopathy. Pershing's support (or anyone's support) for Marshall was unacceptab..."

That was only an opinion, Adele and as Bentley said, sometimes it gives away more that one thinks it does. It is sometimes hard when one has read a plethora of WWII history, to realize that you are stating something that really isn't noted in the chapter that we are reading but something that you have learned from other books. Sometimes that is difficult to remember. :0)

[Alisa]

Thank you, Bentley, for the clarification and helping everyone along. There are veteran club members and some participating in their first read here so good to establish things up front. Anyone with a question of course can ask a moderator, we are here to assist and make the experience enjoyable for all.

[Alisa]

Adelle, fair question and thanks to Jill for your response. We will be reading about strong characters and people will respond to them differently throughout our discussions. As we read more information about these people opinions may change as well. Good to discuss it all, and keep an open mind.

[Phillip]

Alisa wrote: "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 ..."

Got it--my first time.

[Alisa]

Phillip we are glad to have you! Jump in with your comments anytime.

[[deleted user]]

This morning, I was re-reading what I had highlighted in chapter 1. (I downloaded the free sample of the book.)

I found myself thinking again of the public opinion aspects of war. Persico wrote, "The draft became a popular phenomenom.".

Persico gave as examples a Bob Hope "wacky" comedy movie and a comic strip which also seemed to described as light farce.

So I was thinking about how, through media, the (potential) war would be made less ... intimidating. And how the war movies at that time were heroic.

Surely this had some influence on people's thinking... On public opinion.

I don't recall any comedy movies about the Vietnam War. Well, I think MASH-- though set in Korea-- was actually a commentary on the Vietnam War...but it was dark comedy.... Not comedy to make us ignore serious issues, but rather comedy that made us look at serious issues.

Think of the actors who volunteered during WWII. Or they were active in promoting the sale of war bonds. Carolle Lombard was killed in a plane crash after some war bonds event. Clark Gable served in the miltary.

The only "name" that comes to mind for me as a post-wwii celebrity who left the lime light and served in the military was Elvis Presley.

Anyway. That passage just made me think about how much the media can shape public opinion....and how that can have an actual effect on policy.

If movies like The Deer Hunter...if negative moives about wwi were being produced around the time FDR was trying to get his draft bill through...

I'm not advocating that citizens be... sheilded... from the facts---
But it's disconcerting this morning to consider how movies don't simply present facts... They tend to wrap a preferred position up in an emotional package.

Anyway. Interesting.

[Bentley, Group Founder, Leader, Chief]

CHAPTER ONE

What did our readers think when they read Persico's description of the army in 1939: (pages 25 and 26)

"The Army that George Marshall took over in 1939 was, for a country the size of the United States, pitifully weak. A nation with a population of 131 million had 174,000 men in uniform, ranking somewhere between Portugal and Bulgaria. Troops trained with broomsticks for rifles, stovepipes for mortars, trucks for tanks, firecrackers for gunfire, and eggs for hand grenades. So strapped was the Army that a field grade officer had to fill out a requisition for streetcar fare from the War Department to the Capitol. Marshall's task was to transform this small, stagnant, ill-equipped force into a first-rate fighting army. He was to do so in a country in which, even seven weeks after Germany had struck Poland, a poll showed that 95 percent of Americans wanted nothing to do with Europe's conflict."

Please feel free to discuss any aspect of the above and why this might have been the case.

a) Did World War I have anything to do with this and/or how we entered the war, the war itself or the aftermath of that conflict?

b) How was an ordinary man like George Marshall able to handle what many would consider the impossible? What was different in Marshall and how he may have approached problems? Did the author give any insight into the background of this man which may have made him more ready to handle this task? You can add any book you would like (one) when discussing Marshall but please provide proper citations. Any and all lists of books should be placed in the Bibliography thread, lists of links in the Glossary.

c) How did our Army get into this pitiful state?

d) What should the peacetime number for soldiers have been prior to World War II for a country of this size? Does anybody have any ideas?

e) For those of you in the Army now or who have recent experience with the military in any capacity, what kinds of equipment do trainees and new recruits train with and what are your thoughts on the preparedness of the men for actual conflict and warfare with this kind of training?

f) What had occurred in terms of appropriations that would have placed the Army in such dire straits?

g) Why was the climate of the country so adverse to getting involved with Europe's problems (even after Germany had struck Poland)? (95% of all Americans appeared to be "isolationists" or were leaning in that direction) How did that come about? Any discussion of the climate of America's population (before or during 1939 is to be considered on topic.)

Post away.

[Bentley, Group Founder, Leader, Chief]

CHAPTER ONE

The author stated the following:

"FDR could be maddening with fluctuations, course reversals, and bewildering thought processes. But in Marshall he had found a sturdy oak able to bear the weight of his shifting predilections, a compass that always gave him a true bearing, whether he chose to heed it or not. In George Marshall, the president had made his single wisest choice for the military eventualities, as yet unknown, that loomed over the horizon."

Please feel free to discuss any aspect of the above and your opinions.

Any aspect of the above is on topic as long as it deals with any of the years before 1939 or during 1939 itself. We will discuss other elements of this relationship as it unfolds in future chapters.

a) What was the author talking about in terms of FDR's decision making skills and what were some of the bewildering thought processes that were observed by others up to that point?

b) Do you think your impression of FDR would be vastly different if you had to work with the man on a matter of life or death versus simply listening to him on the radio when he delivered those wonderful Fireside Chats?

c) Marshall and FDR must have made an "odd couple". How would two such personalities get along during a crisis? Why was Marshall such a good choice for the President and why was the President a good partner for Marshall? What did they gain from the relationship and what did the country gain in the pairing? Who else might have been chosen for Marshall's role and how do you think that would have worked out?

d) How was Marshall the "navigator" for FDR?

e) What are you thoughts regarding how both men made decisions?

All discussions of any of the above are considered on topic.

[Bentley, Group Founder, Leader, Chief]

All, any topic discussed in the Preface, the Introduction and Chapter One is considered OK for this thread. And any questions that you have can be posted here for discussion by the group if they deal with the above. Questions for Mr. Persico and this book can be posted on the Q&A thread.

[G]

Adelle wrote: "This morning, I was re-reading what I had highlighted in chapter 1. (I downloaded the free sample of the book.)

I found myself thinking again of the public opinion aspects of war. Persico wrote, ..."

I was thinking something similar. Given how circumspect the press was at that time in their presentation of events, I wonder how much the public really knew about what was going on.

[Peter]

Bentley wrote: "CHAPTER ONE

a) Did World War I have anything to do with this and/or how we entered the war, the war itself or the aftermath of that conflict?

b) How was an ordinary man like George Marshall able to handle what many would consider the impossible? What was different in Marshall and how he may have approached problems? Did the author give any insight into the background of this man which may have made him more ready to handle this task? You can add any book you would like (one) when discussing Marshall but please provide proper citations. Any and all lists of books should be placed in the Bibliography thread, lists of links in the Glossary.

c) How did our Army get into this pitiful state? )

g)Why was the climate of the country so adverse to getting involved with Europe's problems (even after Germany had struck Poland)? (95% of all Americans appeared to be "isolationists" or were leaning in that direction) How did that come about? Any discussion of the climate of America's population (before or during 1939 is to be considered on topic.)
..."

OK, let's see.

WWI had a huge effect, I think; people felt hoodwinked by Wilson and this increased nativist and isolationist tendencies in the USA.

If George Marshall was ordinary, then I am the King of France! Marshall was extraordinary in many ways. I don't have the book in front of me, but there were quotes about how he was a genius; in addition, he had an amazing sense of honor and was willing to disagree with FDR to his face.

The rest of the questions are all based on similar ideas: The strong isolationist tendency. From Washington's "avoid entangling alliances" to the Monroe Doctrine, to nativism in its sometimes racist ways, to the idea that the oceans would protect us.

[Alisa]

Related to FDR's decision making and thought process, I thought the observations in the book about his personal lack of organization more than a little surprising. (p. 13) His oval office study sounds like a mess! I would not expect a perfectly organized desk but but for someone who was faced with making decisions about a multitude of complex issues it makes you wonder how he kept it al straight. Is this a reflection of his personality, his thought process, both?

[Alisa]

You can see how the isolationists came to their position. WWI was sold to a reluctant public and came with unwanted financial burdens and human costs. It was fought on soil in Europe, not at home or a threat to those on US soil. The world probably did not seem like the small global community that it is today.

[Peter]

My impression is that FDR kept everything in his head and used all these other techniques to keep everyone else off balance. This is certainly one way to stay in charge. It requires an agile mind and a good memory, but FDR seems to have had both. It allowed him to make great use of his many advisers, something that is absolutely crucial in a modern POTUS.

[Bentley, Group Founder, Leader, Chief]

Adelle wrote: "This morning, I was re-reading what I had highlighted in chapter 1. (I downloaded the free sample of the book.)

I found myself thinking again of the public opinion aspects of war. Persico wrote, ..."

Adele do you have a copy of the book? Are you still waiting for it? I saw that you just downloaded what you said was a free copy of Chapter One. I doubt that the free internet copy will go much further than Chapter One or included all that came before. The non spoiler threads are really geared for folks who are reading the book, have it in hand and can refer to it. There is no way to participate on a non spoiler thread if you do not have the book because you cannot tell what is a spoiler because you do not have the book to make sure that you are only discussing the assigned pages or what came before. I just want to reiterate that your post and posts have been fine including post 166 where you did a tremendous job of referring to the events described by the author and making thoughtful analogies. But having a copy of the book is critical for the book discussions but not for the majority of threads in the History Book Club.

[Alisa]

Peter wrote: "My impression is that FDR kept everything in his head and used all these other techniques to keep everyone else off balance. This is certainly one way to stay in charge. It requires an agile mind a..."

Quite a method, I guess it has caught me by surprise! So true, it certainly is one way to control things.

[Bentley, Group Founder, Leader, Chief]

Peter wrote: "Bentley wrote: "CHAPTER ONE

a) Did World War I have anything to do with this and/or how we entered the war, the war itself or the aftermath of that conflict?

b) How was an ordinary man like Georg..."

Peter good points - maybe Marshall was a mortal man would have been better (smile) - yes all that you say is in the book.

Why don't you expand on your last paragraph. The examples are events that came before and certainly could have and did influence the events and the country's atmosphere in 1939.

[Bentley, Group Founder, Leader, Chief]

Alisa wrote: "Related to FDR's decision making and thought process, I thought the observations in the book about his personal lack of organization more than a little surprising. (p. 13) His oval office study so..."

You and Persico make great points. You have to wonder - what is there about FDR which is myth and what actually is there about FDR which is public relations driven. Also, it is obvious that he had tremendous skills in addressing crowds of people and had excellent delivery.

What if Marshall had not been chosen? And you only had Churchill and FDR hatching plans. It would have been interesting times. Peter makes the point about Marshall not being an ordinary man and that is so true; he was mortal like FDR but they were as different from each other as night and day.

And I have to add that FDR was no ordinary man either - he did many great things and carried the nation through some very tough times and one of them is about to start.

[Bentley, Group Founder, Leader, Chief]

G wrote: "Adelle wrote: "This morning, I was re-reading what I had highlighted in chapter 1. (I downloaded the free sample of the book.)

I found myself thinking again of the public opinion aspects of war. ..."

Probably few G - how many folks had televisions (probably few) and how many folks even had radio - although I am not sure abut the exact numbers in 1939.

I am going to add this G which is interesting: (Wikipedia)

"By 1947, when there were 40 million radios in the U.S., there were about 44,000 television sets (with probably 30,000 in the New York area).

Regular network television broadcasts began on NBC on a three-station network linking New York with the Capital District and Philadelphia in 1944; on the DuMont Television Network in 1946, and on CBS and ABC in 1948.

Following the rapid rise of television after the war, the Federal Communications Commission was flooded with applications for television station licenses. With more applications than available television channels, the FCC ordered a freeze on processing station applications in 1948 that remained in effect until April 14, 1952.

By 1949, the networks stretched from New York to the Mississippi River, and by 1951 to the West Coast. Commercial color television broadcasts began on CBS in 1951 with a field-sequential color system that was suspended four months later for technical and economic reasons. The television industry's National Television System Committee (NTSC) developed a color television system based on RCA technology that was compatible with existing black and white receivers, and commercial color broadcasts reappeared in 1953.

So I guess we can assume that radio broadcast was it and many households in 1939 may not have had that. I guess folks relied on word of mouth, the newspapers for the news that they received, mail, telegrams, etc.

[Alisa]

Bentley wrote: "Alisa wrote: "Related to FDR's decision making and thought process, I thought the observations in the book about his personal lack of organization more than a little surprising. (p. 13) His oval o..."

Well, somebody would have been chosen had it not been Marshall. FDR needed someone to help him rebuild the Army. Marshall could not have been more different from FDR but he ended up being the right guy. Persico makes the point that FDR had plenty of yes men around him but Marshall was willing to disagree with him. (p. 20-21). FDR could get what he wanted through Marshall but Marshall was nobodys puppet.

[Bentley, Group Founder, Leader, Chief]

And we are glad he was not.

[Alisa]

Great comment Nathan. Very well stated.

[Peter]

Hi Bentley et al, re my point about American nativism and isolationism, I am no expert. I am sure there are some experts on this list!

[Alisa]

Peter wrote: "Hi Bentley et al, re my point about American nativism and isolationism, I am no expert. I am sure there are some experts on this list!"

You don't have to be an expert. :-) We are interested in your opinion and thoughts about what you are reading in this book. Do share.

[Bentley, Group Founder, Leader, Chief]

Peter wrote: "Hi Bentley et al, re my point about American nativism and isolationism, I am no expert. I am sure there are some experts on this list!"

As Alisa pointed out we do not need experts - just interested in what the readers of the book are thinking.

[Bentley, Group Founder, Leader, Chief]

Nathan wrote: "Bentley wrote: g)Why was the climate of the country so adverse to getting involved with Europe's problems (even after Germany had struck Poland)? (95% of all Americans appeared to be "isolationists..."

Very interesting Nathan - you make an excellent point about the nature of war.

[Jim]

Why was the climate of the country so adverse to getting involved with Europe's ... (95% of all Americans appeared to be "isolationists..."

To me the Versailles Treaty enhanced American isolationism. It reset the world according to the interests of the victors and then relied on the treaty to enforce that status quo. The problem is,I believe, that each nation then saw any threat to the treaty the responsibility of the nation most concerned with a new problem. Or, each nation wanted to enjoy the fruits of the treaty with an expectation that the expenses would be born by someone else. Expense in this case was maintaining a strong military posture capable of deterring those nations not satisfied with the status quo.

[Alisa]

Interesting point, Jim. Do you think the treaty essentially created tenuous relationships between the treaty participants?

[Jim]

Alisa wrote: "Interesting point, Jim. Do you think the treaty essentially created tenuous relationships between the treaty participants?"

To me the history of Europe is a study in tenuous relationships. I'm sure it didn't help when Great Britain or France called Roosevelt for support on this or that concern and, if he returned the call, he replied that they should work it out on their side of the pond.

"The armies of the earth have marched across the realms of time over highways carpeted by treaties of amity." Pg. 85 The Versailles Treaty and its Legacy



The Versailles Treaty and Its Legacy: The Failure of the Wilsonian Vision

[Alisa]

Great quote to make the point, and thanks for citing your point of reference. Don't forget the author links as well for the propery citation.

by Norman A. Graebner

To me the time period between WWI and WWII is a blur of one big period of turmoil among largely the same countries.

[Jim]

Alisa wrote: "Great quote to make the point, and thanks for citing your point of reference. Don't forget the author links as well for the propery citation.

[bookcover:The Versailles Treaty and Its Legacy: The ..."

And there are countless books attempting to unwind the blur you described above. This is the fascination of history and will keep me reading until I've read every book.

[Alisa]

Ha! It's why we read and keep reading! I don't want to get ahead of the discussion, but I believe we will see more mention of the this later in the book. We'll be adding companion materials to the glossary as well for those who want to explore further.

[G]

Bentley wrote: "G wrote: "Adelle wrote: "This morning, I was re-reading what I had highlighted in chapter 1. (I downloaded the free sample of the book.)

I found myself thinking again of the public opinion aspects..."

Thanks, Bentley. Those numbers are remarkable. And think about all the people who did not have access to daily, world class newspapers. Things have sure changed in 60 or so years.

[Bentley, Group Founder, Leader, Chief]

They certainly are G. Could not agree more.

[Mark]

Bentley wrote: "e) What are you thoughts regarding how both men made decisions?"

I'm fascinated by this aspect of their characters, and men like them.

It's amazing to me how men such as FDR and Marshall go about making decisions, we hear about some of their reasoning after, we laud their successful decisions and scrutinize their erroneous ones.

But I always have a hankering to know the real mechanics of their decision making, what did these men DO to arrive at these monumental decisions they were tasked with making?

Did they sit in a favorite place and visualize various scenarios? ask themselves questions? study history and look for connections? I don't know - but would love to hear thoughts from others who have more insight on this.

My mind spins sometimes at how such complex decisions are made ultimately by one man at times.

[Bentley, Group Founder, Leader, Chief]

I know Mark - I wonder that myself - we might be frightened after the fact if we found out that they just stumbled into making them at a messy desk (smile) - or with no personal organization and a cluttered Oval Office (gasp). Or what we might find more frightening is if they sat around and discussed what to next and it was "trial and error". I think we can thank our lucky stars that Marshall was the "rudder". I hope that the book sheds some light on the decision making prowess or lack there of - in terms of FDR and his individual Centurions. We already have high hopes for Marshall and believe that he was the "sturdy oak".

You know Mark that is a great question for Persico - because I am beginning to ask that myself. What was really going on and how do we know?

It is frankly frightening and that is why voting for the smartest and maybe most serious person is paramount (like a Marshall) - it is obvious that Marshall did not think that FDR was humorous. Persico has told us that much and that there developed a real respect for each other despite their personal differences. Each had what the other did not.

But one decision that I give FDR a lot of credit for was the first one of choosing Marshall. That did show good decision making ability somewhere.

[Alisa]

Mark it is a great question and Bentley yes a little frightening too. We can examine their background and temperament and career decisions till the cows come home but how do you know really what someone will do when faced with these huge and unique questions. They may have all the intellect in the world but do they have the practical outlook to make the right judgement call and how on earth did they know when to pull the trigger. Maybe some of it was lack of other good options.

[Bentley, Group Founder, Leader, Chief]

Yes, that is where reading documents which are released after so many years prove helpful - you get inside their heads.

[Jill]

I was surprised the FDR was rather disorganized and had, as Persico stated a "slapdash administration". (pg.24) I was always under the impression that he was a man who probably made lists and had his thoughts arranged very specifically around each issue that was brought to him. I can understand that Marshall who was organized, thought initially that FDR was nothing more than a glib politician. But his appointment balanced the President's "shortcomings" and he said "if I can only keep all personal feeling out of my system, I may be able to get through this job". He was a very loyal member of FDR's team even though he might not have approved of his style.

[Bentley, Group Founder, Leader, Chief]

Agreed - I am not sure how he handled it all but he did.

[Mark]

Bentley, that's certainly a scary proposition - men simply going with their "gut" with the potential for disastrous consequences to millions of lives.

Perhaps it was just that more often than not, perhaps their innate courage simply allowed them to come to terms with the enormous risks, and simply push on with their most favoured volition.

I'm sure however that each of these man certainly had some interesting ways of personally dealing with their responsibilities, and I hope to learn more about them as we proceed.

[Bentley, Group Founder, Leader, Chief]

Great post and aptly put. I saw your question to Mr. Persico - an excellent one. I wish there was a video of even just one of their planning sessions - wouldn't that have been outstanding. We would really be able to tell a lot about each man during the session. But if these kinds of things existed at all and that is pretty doubtful - it is even more remote that we would be privy to any of them. I think that the British and the Churchill museum had some records of some of their planning sessions during the war and how they evolved and the discussion back and forth - but I have seen no evidence of FDR and his military men having records like that. Maybe they do exist.

They really had no choice but find a way forward so it certainly was courage, an aptitude to focus and stay the course, and a readiness to understand the perils of not working together. It was a matter of necessity most of all. There was a lot riding on it.

[[deleted user]]

@ 172. Alisa wrote: "Related to FDR's decision making and thought process, I thought the observations in the book about his personal lack of organization more than a little surprising. (p. 13) His oval office study sounds like a mess"

Persico wrote,"he directed the war from an evironment of controlled chaos, largely self- created."

I don't think Persico is referring to physical chaos.

"controlled chaos" "self-created"

I think Persico is referring to the confusion that would result from FDR's tendency to give everyone he talked with the impression that he agreed with them. Controlled chaos--in that FDR himself knew what he was ultimately planning to do. Self-created--in that it was FDR himself who gave multiple people the impression he was agreeing with them.

"Much of the misunderstanding about Roosevelt's own views on a wide variety of issues stemmed from his affability, from his dispostion to listen rather than argue...encouraging nods of the president's head, would leave [those he had spoken with] the firm conviction that he thoroughly agreed with the opinions they had expressed." Roosevelt wanted to keep all his options open until the last minute. (Redeeming the Time p474-75)

I think a number of us have read about this characteristic of Roosevelt's.


Redeeming the Time by Page Smith (No photo)