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

[Bentley, Group Founder, Leader, Chief]

Adele - good notes - gave you some helpful hints on getting the citation correct on the bibliography - they apply here too.

by Page Smith (no photo)

Will delete helpful hints once edit complete.

Keeping all your options open sounds good but what about the impression that he agreed with these folks and obviously did not. How must they have felt afterwards.

[Steven]

I see some similarities between FDR and Abraham Lincoln as President. Obviously they both presided over huge, tragic wars. They also both tried hard to avoid war. They both had to deal with public opinion and also had to placate Congress.

But on a personal level there are similarities too, I think. Obviously FDR came from a much more privileged, wealthier, and more educated background than did Lincoln, but both men seemed capable of captivating their audience (usually). Lincoln did it with humorous stories that almost always left people laughing. And Lincoln's stories always had a point.

I'm a little unclear about how FDR did it. Persico mentions that FDR talked a lot, sometimes talking for as long as an hour to a very small audience of two or three, but he does not seem to say much about what FDR said while he was holding center stage. I would like to know more.

[[deleted user]]

Bentley wrote: ".Keeping all your options open sounds good but what about the impression that he agreed with these folks and obviously did not. How must they have felt afterwards. "

From what I've read it upset people and some raged against him and it probably contributed to the impression some had that he was deceiptful.

It strikes me as one of those lawyerly things ("It depends what the definition of 'is' is.". Plenty of other modern examples could be given.). Technically... thinking to self... I didn't really promise... Or agree... Or whathaveyou. Like with that speech FDR gave that his son called him out on: that FDR wouldn't send America's sons into foreign wars.... Because "technically" ... If America is attacked... If war is declared on America... Then it's not a foreign war.

There was a quote---I will try to find it--"So you play the game the way it has been played over the years--and you play to win.". (page 56...in my ebook)

Same thing in today's political world-- one sees politicians carefully parsing their words---or answering a question slightly different from the question which was put to them... So that they will have deniability...technically...they haven't "actually" lied.

....i would suppose...that to some degree...the people who share the goals of the that politician (in this case FDR) will find a way to ... Recognize the necessity... And those who oppose the goals... Will condemn the statement in the strongest terms.

There is, it seems to me, a huge influencing factor of "the end justifies the means"... For FDR... His end was to prepare for war...since he believed war was coming...And what would happen to the US and Western Civilization--what would happen to the Anglo-Saxon western world--I think that was a consideration-- if Germany prevailed?

Must be tough to be president in a time of war. Must be tough to be president anytime. The responsibility. Wow.

[[deleted user]]

Steven wrote: "I see some similarities between FDR and Abraham Lincoln as President. Obviously they both presided over huge, tragic wars. They also both tried hard to avoid war. They both had to deal with public ..."

I like your comparison of FDR and Lincoln. How though they had different styles, they both also had some ability to ... connect...

Maybe ??? The jokes, the stories... humanized them in the eyes of people... If people could see them humanized, it would be easier to think of those presidents of being capable of caring...

(I think, too, that FDR and Lincoln used the jokes, the talking talking talking, to keep people at an emotional distance.)

[Bentley, Group Founder, Leader, Chief]

Folks, was all of the above in Chapter One or before - make sure to not become expansive.

If so, go here:

http://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/1...

Anybody can kick off the discussion there and folks will follow for expansive discussions but just make sure that the only pages covered on this thread are through page 26 and before 1939 if topics are germane and 1939 itself (same thing)

[Bryan]

It is a great question about decision making. My impression is that FDR was a social person, probably talked stuff out. Also, he had a very sharp mind, worked quickly. For example, if memory serves, he sketched out Lend-Lease in his head in short order. Pretty brilliant.

[Bentley, Group Founder, Leader, Chief]

That is pretty brilliant.

[Alisa]

There is a passage in Chapter One describing FDR using the technique of launching into somewhat of a monologue if he wanted to deflect the issue at hand. A sly way of telegraphing or hiding his thought process on any particular issue. Is that just politics or FDRs way of doing things?

[Bentley, Group Founder, Leader, Chief]

I saw that too - odd - it seems more political really but I wonder what others think.

[Bryan]

Indeed, FDR loved to talk and it could be a device he used. He even had a way of nodding his head if you were talking. This way you walked away thinking, wow, FDR is with me on this. But not really.

[Alisa]

Bryan wrote: "Indeed, FDR loved to talk and it could be a device he used. He even had a way of nodding his head if you were talking. This way you walked away thinking, wow, FDR is with me on this. But not rea..."

I don't know if that is humorous, endearing, or frustrating. Depends who you are in the equation I guess!

[Bryan]

All the above, Alisa, lol. I remember reading how exciting and frustrating it was to be in FDR's presence.

As stated before, Marshall I believe was a great counter-balance to FDR. He was formal, had less to say, but commanded great presence.

[Alisa]

Bryan wrote: "All the above, Alisa, lol. I remember reading how exciting and frustrating it was to be in FDR's presence.

As stated before, Marshall I believe was a great counter-balance to FDR. He was formal,..."

Well it will be interesting to see how this develops with FDR's relationships with his other commanders in the book. Marshall seems to have a way with him, perhaps because he is a good counter-balance.

[Jill]

Marshall is not afraid to disagree with FDR as shown in this quote from Chpt.1 (pg 21. "...he intended to speak his mind in a way that might not always be welcome".......(when the President answered positively, Marshall stated) "You said yes pleasantly but it may be unpleasant" I think FDR probably appreciated a man that was not a toady "yes" man and that was part of the counter-balance Alisa mentioned.

[Alisa]

Jill wrote: "Marshall is not afraid to disagree with FDR as shown in this quote from Chpt.1 (pg 21. "...he intended to speak his mind in a way that might not always be welcome".......(when the President answere..."

It probably strokes the ego to be surrounded by "yes men" but not so good for practical decision making as a president. This shows me FDR was smart enough to know the difference, and something he would have well figured out by his second term in office.

[Peter]

Alisa wrote: "It probably strokes the ego to be surrounded by "yes men" ""

I think it only strokes the egos of small men to be so surrounded. A person with a healthy ego does not need "yes men"; he or she is secure already.

There is a continuum (as in so many traits): At the low end are people who are insecure and need to be told how wonderful they are. At the high end are egomaniacs, who are certain they are right. Neither make good leaders; the best leaders are sure enough of themselves to know they can be wrong: Of our presidents, Lincoln and FDR fall most certainly into this group; Truman is close. The tragedy of LBJ, who did so many good things, is exposed in the fact that he needed extreme "yes men"; the same problems led to him not being able to confront JFK's appointees. So, Vietnam.

[Alisa]

Peter wrote: "Alisa wrote: "It probably strokes the ego to be surrounded by "yes men" ""

I think it only strokes the egos of small men to be so surrounded. A person with a healthy ego does not need "yes men"; h..."

Interesting comparison of leaders, Peter.

[Steven]

It's not considered a nice word, and FDR is being portrayed as the "god guy" in this book, but FDR's opponents would be within their rights to refer to some of his actions mentioned in Chapter 1 as "duplicitous."

On the day after the first draft lottery but before FDR's election to a third term as President, FDR told the public, “While I am talking to you fathers and mothers, I give you one more assurance. I have said this before, but I shall say it again and again and again; your boys are not going to be sent into any foreign wars.” FDR then made a private remark that according to Persico led to “FDR’s son James [confronting] his father about the 'dishonesty of his war stand.' FDR explained, 'If I don’t say I hate war, then people are going to think I don’t hate war. If I say we’re going to get into this war, people will think I want us in it. If I don’t say I won’t send our sons to fight on foreign battlefields, then people will think I want to send them.… So you play the game the way it has been played over the years, and you play to win.'”

Later in Chapter One, Persico describes how Marshall, in his first Washington meeting with FDR (Nov. 1938) refused to publicly agree with FDR's plan to build 24,000 planes per year in order to build up the US Army Air Force so it could defend the Western Hemisphere. Right after this Persico states: “What [FDR] really wanted was to produce enough planes to supply France and Britain, enabling them to deter the threat of Hitler’s ever more powerful Luftwaffe. It would take time for a straight shooter like Marshall to follow the labyrinthine twists of Franklin Roosevelt’s mind.”

Would we today tolerate in our President the deceptions used by FDR? Don't we today insist on more honesty from our Presidents, especially if the current President happens to belong to "the other political party"?

(My apologies for the lack of page numbers but I am reading an electronic version of this book, so page numbers vary with the choice of font size.)

[Alisa]

Steven wrote: "It's not considered a nice word, and FDR is being portrayed as the "god guy" in this book, but FDR's opponents would be within their rights to refer to some of his actions mentioned in Chapter 1 as..."

You raise an excellent point. While we may not like it, isn't FDR still right when he says that "you play the game the way it has been played". We expect the President to be straight with the American people but sadly is that really the case any more? I'm not saying it shouldn't be, but it seems to me the reality is that we get the packaged truth and not always the harsh reality. There is much hidden behind the claim of national security. There is a limit to how much a President can get away with, but this kind of bending the truth that FDR did seems par for the course.

[Steven]

Alisa wrote: "...There is a limit to how much a President can get away with, but this kind of bending the truth that FDR did seems par for the course."

According to an Esquire/Yahoo poll of a while back, it would appear that Alisa is correct that Americans expect their political leaders to lie sometimes, but it also appears that Americans do not like it.

When asked, "As a rule, do you expect politicians to lie sometimes, or always tell the truth?"
67% said "sometimes lie" while 31% said "always tell the truth.

When asked, "If you expect them to lie, how much does this bother you?"
52% said "a lot," 22% said "some," 15% said "a little," and 11% said "not at all."

I believe a much more recent poll showed that Americans did not mind it if representatives of their own political party lied, but were angered when members of the opposing party lied.

So I think we should keep this all in mind as we work our way through this book and ask ourselves when was it appropriate to lie, and when did the American people deserve to know the truth?

[Alisa]

Steven wrote: "Alisa wrote: "...There is a limit to how much a President can get away with, but this kind of bending the truth that FDR did seems par for the course."

According to an Esquire/Yahoo poll of a whil..."

Interesting. I did not have this poll in mind but it doesn't surprise me too much, however sad that may be. You don't have to look far in the daily press to see examples of people who are outraged that 'the other party' lies. It's the state of affairs in politics. Frustrating, and we all deserve better.

[Jim]

The problem with presidents and a forked tongue is that other nations are listening as well. Foreign policies are in part the actions countries take in response to the perceived actions or intents of other countries. Deception in the name of political (votes) gain is ugly but deception in foreign relations can lead to destruction. Will FDR espouse neutrality for local consumption yet lead Hitler to assume an America uninterested in the course of Europe?

[Alisa]

Jim wrote: "The problem with presidents and a forked tongue is that other nations are listening as well. Foreign policies are in part the actions countries take in response to the perceived actions or intents ..."

Word didn't travel as fast in 1939 as it does now. To what extent did this affect how much and what other nations heard coming from the U.S.?

[Mark]

Alisa wrote: "There is a passage in Chapter One describing FDR using the technique of launching into somewhat of a monologue if he wanted to deflect the issue at hand. A sly way of telegraphing or hiding his tho..."

Perhaps as an extroverted personality which I'm fairly sure FDR was, he spoke as he was thinking.

A difference cited between extroverts and introverts is that the former generally verbalizes before thinking or indeed uses speech to make connections in their mind as they talk, and vice versa for the latter.

I think some extroverted people actually assimilate their thoughts, and construct their ideas with greater facility as they speak. The opposite can be true for an introvert who may well look at this behavior as incoherent rambling, because they themselves build their thoughts and ideas in their own minds before verbalizing them.

Just a theory!

[Matthew]

I have just finished the Introduction, and read the comments on this thread pertaining to it. Am I the only one who found the arguments interesting, but very muddled? Maybe he is making a valid point that will be explained in detail in the Chapters, but I found the Introduction to be making a number of points that did not always go along with each other.

One of the major premises was that Roosevelt -- the Civilian Commander in Chief -- was in fact the "strategist in chief" (p.12, Nook version). We spend some time talking about how America has a "civilian" military leader. Persico then provides an example of "pressuring a resistant admiral to adop the convoy system" and then "against the will of his military chiefs, who unanimously supported an invasion across the English channel . . . chose to engage America . . . agains the French in North Africa." (p. 13).

Fine, I assume that these were two of the "over twenty major decisions that went 'against the advice, or over the protests of his military advisers.'"

But he gives other examples also. "In another major override of his professionals, Roosevelt supported Douglas MacArthur's insistence that the general be allowed to reconquer the Phillipines." (p. 14). Is this an example of a Civilian Commander in Chief meddling with the military commanders? It sounds to me like the President siding with the military commanders over the other civilians in the War Department. Then there's the example that "Roosevelt set in motion the quest for the atomic bomb." (p. 16). Over the objections of whom? Were his military chiefs against it? He doesn't say. Same with the decision to devote 85% of the war material to Europe, with a lot less to Asia. Was he getting different advice from the military commanders? We don't know.

Is the point only that the President is (to use a G.W.Bush phrase) "the Decider"? If so, that's fine, but kind of limited. But Persico seems to be wanting to make a bigger point. I just can't figure out what it is. That the Civilian president overrides the military? If so, why bring up examples where Roosevelt sides with the military? That he ignored experts in the War Department? Fine, but the Secretary of War is also a "civilian" leader, not a military one. That he supported the controversial Manhattan Project? Over whose objections? Is that one of the "over twenty major decisions"? I can't tell.

I am enjoying the read, and want to see where it goes, but finding some of the wording and arguments muddy.

[Steven]

Matthew wrote: "I have just finished the Introduction, and read the comments on this thread pertaining to it. Am I the only one who found the arguments interesting, but very muddled? Maybe he is making a valid p..."

Some of this will be explained in later chapters. In some of these decisions the President was in agreement with his most senior military advisors, in some he was won over by them, and in some he differed with them. We will also see that once the US becomes allied with Britain, the number of personalities with which FDR can agree or disagree triples: agree with my political counterpart (Churchill) or disagree with him? Agree with my political counterpart's military advisors (the British Joint Chiefs of Staff) or diasagree with them? Agree with own senior military advisors or disagree with them? The US was in the war for over three and a half years, and there were a great many opportunities to agree and disagree.

[Steven]

Alisa wrote: "...It's the state of affairs in politics. Frustrating, and we all deserve better."

But do we really deserve better? If we condone lying by our own political party, what right do we have to complain when the opposing political party lies? If we condone lying by our political party's presidential candidate when he is running for office, what right do we have to complain when he becomes President and then decides "for the good of the country" to hide things from us or even lie to us, as FDR was shown in Chapter One to have done at least twice?

I think the question of duplicity or expediency by political leaders is a central question of this book. And once we become allies with Britain and the Soviet Union, keep your eyes open to see how frank and honest each ally is with the other. We all know that every nation has its own agenda. Also look to see whether George Marshall will prove to be more honest and forthright than his British counterparts or whether he will also have his flaws.

[Matthew]

We will also see that once the US becomes allied with Britain, the number of personalities with which FDR can agree or disagree triples:

Maybe, but in the Introduction, we seem to already be counting the entire population of the United States as among his military advisors, so we're probably not tripling that number. "Even after the Amerian people seethed with vengeance over the sneak attack on Pearl Harbor, FDR never wavered from his position that the war against Germany retained priority." (p. 13).

Fine. I don't disagree with any of his facts here, and it may be that a lot of it is explained later on, but my sense is that as an Introduction, it is missing the mark. Maybe FDR should be praised to the sky for focusing primarily on Germany in the face of popular anti-Japanese sentiment, but not in a section allegedly discussing his disagreements with military advisors.

[Alisa]

Matthew wrote: "We will also see that once the US becomes allied with Britain, the number of personalities with which FDR can agree or disagree triples:

Maybe, but in the Introduction, we seem to already be coun..."

I see your point Matthew. I think we have to view this first chapter and intro as setting the stage for the author's thesis with the understanding that many examples and further analysis awaits. It can be a challenge to see it by reading just this one chapter. The commander in chief wears a lot of hats and the role subject to the person in the job at the time. We are bound to get further into the heads of the various parties involved.

Glad you are jumping into the discussion.

[Alisa]

Steven wrote: "Alisa wrote: "...It's the state of affairs in politics. Frustrating, and we all deserve better."

But do we really deserve better? If we condone lying by our own political party, what right do we h..."

As a matter of principle we deserve better but have we earned it if we are willing to tolerate being lied to have we earned it. Probably not. But then it creates vicious cycle. where does it stop? On the other hand, does the Commander in Chief have the right to withhold information if they believe it is in the country's best interests for the sake of security or otherwise. We have to trust these people to make some big decisions and judgment calls that have serious ramifications.

[Peter]

There are different flavors of lies.

First, not all statements are verifiable as true or false. There are things we believe to be true, but that turn out not to be. These are mistakes, not lies. But it can be hard to determine which are which, since that involves figuring out what a person knew at a given time.

Second there are legalisms that are weird. The great recent example of this is Clinton's "It depends on what the definition of "is" is". This was a legal answer. But some words are hard to define exactly. Since I used to do research into sexually transmitted diseases, I know that words about sex are surprisingly hard to define unambiguously.

Third, there are statements that aren't exactly opinions and aren't exactly facts. And people often express their opinions as if they were facts. Compare e.g.,

"Bentley is the 2nd person I know with that first name

to, e.g.

"Bentley does a good job moderating this list",

The first is either true or false, but no one other than me can know. The second one isn't really a matter of fact (for that, you'd have to define "good" in a precise way, which would be quite tricky; but it isn't purely an opinion (as, e.g. "I like sushi" would be).

How often do presidents tell outright lies? Well, probably too often. But quite a lot of the "lies" are not purely lies.

There are also a number of psychological effects going on when we evaluate a statement given by a known person. Prominent among these is the halo effect: If a person is believed to be smart, decent, kind etc. then we tend to believe he or she is also honest. Related to this is the "boy who cried wolf" effect: If a person has been caught lying, he or she loses trust; contrariwise, if a person has told hard truths, he or she will be trusted. We also judge people on all sorts of factors not related to T/F.

[G]

Parents lie to their young children all the time, for their supposed greater good. Perhaps FDR saw his role as 'in loco parentis' to the American people, and lied to them for what he saw as their greater good. I am not referring to other presidents here, because that is not the focus of this book.

[Matthew]

If I don’t say I hate war, then people are going to think I don’t hate war. If I say we’re going to get into this war, people will think I want us in it. If I don’t say I won’t send our sons to fight on foreign battlefields, then people will think I want to send them

I think the criticism of Presidents for lying doesn't take seriously what Roosevelt is actually saying. Words have meanings, but they also create reactions in people, and we use words to get the reactions we want as much as too convey information -- often more so.

If I truthfully think I am very smart, and I want you to know that I am very smart, what should I do? Shoud I tell the truth and say, "I am very smart," and then you will you think, "Matthew is very smart"? No, I will say it you will think that I am full of myself and a braggart. Should I say, "I am very smart, and I think that is true, even though you will think I am a braggart for saying so"? No, you probably wouldn't think I am smart then, either. You will think I am weird. Maybe it would make more sense to try some sort of a humble brag. "I just finished James Joyce's Ulysses. Wow! What a great book! I'm sure there were a few parts that flew over my head -- I'm not an expert on early 20th Century Irish culture, you know! -- but the parts I understood were amazing!" You might listen to me and think, "That guy's pretty smart." If I do it right, I might even come off sounding modest. And I have expressed what I want to express, even if I am actually outright lying about some point (I really am an expert on early 20th Century Irish culture!)

Roosevelt is saying that when a President speaks, he is both conveying explicit facts, and expressing implicit information about his mindset and attitudes. However, unlike people like us who are not President of the United States, we don't have the luxury of not saying anything (or, rather, silence itself will be given great meaning.)

So what if, making the truthful statement: "I don't want to want to get into this war, but we probably will anyway" will be intepreted by most to mean the false statement, "I want to get into this war," and making the false statement "We will not get into this war," will be interpreted by most to mean the true statement, "I don't want to get into this war, but we probably will anyway"? Which is the "truth" and which is the "lie"?

Maybe Roosevelt was blowing smoke, but I think his statement deserves more credence than I think it is getting.

[Alisa]

Perhaps FDR was word smithing his way out of a conundrum. He had to say something, and chose the path he thought was the most acceptable in a way that was not inconsistent with how own thinking.

[Matthew]

Finished Chapter 1. I found several points troubling, but none moreso than this one -- mentioned earlier but not discussed at length:

“certain American generals, in a last-minute bid for glory, ordered their troops out of the trenches to face German Maxim machine guns hours, even minutes before the cease-fire set for 11 A.M.” (Nook, p. 33).

In a chapter about Marshall and his exorable rise as a protege of General Pershing, is it not somewhat disengenuous to mention that "certain [unnamed] American generals" were, in fact, primarily General Pershing himself?

From a British site:

In particular, the Americans took heavy casualties on the last day of the war. This was because their commander, General John Pershing, believed that the Germans had to be severely defeated at a military level to effectively ‘teach them a lesson’. Pershing saw the terms of the Armistice as being soft on the Germans. Therefore, he supported those commanders who wanted to be pro-active in attacking German positions – even though he knew that an Armistice had been signed. In particular, the Americans suffered heavy casualties attempting to cross the River Meuse on the night of the 10th/11th with the US Marines taking over 1,100 casualties alone. However, if they had waited until 11.00, they could have crossed the river unhindered and with no casualties.

. . .

Officially over 10,000 men were killed, wounded or went missing on November 11th 1918. The Americans alone suffered over 3,000 casualties. When these losses became public knowledge, such was the anger at home that Congress held a hearing regarding the matter. In November 1919, Pershing faced a House of Representatives Committee on Military Affairs that examined whether senior army commanders had acted accordingly in the last few days of the war. However, no one was ever charged with negligence and Pershing remained unapologetic, remaining convinced that the Germans had got off lightly with the terms of the Armistice. He also stated that although he knew about the timing of the Armistice, he simply did not trust the Germans to carry out their obligations. He therefore, as commander in chief, ordered the army to carry on as it would normally do as any “judicious commander” would have done. Pershing also pointed out that he was merely carrying out the orders of the Allies Supreme Commander, Marshall Ferdinand Foch, that were to “pursue the field greys (Germans) until the last minute”.

http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/...

If Pershing is to be praised for seeing Marshall's greatness, he should be taken to task (or, at least properly identified) in his part in causing over 3,000 needless American deaths.

[Alisa]

Matthew wrote: "Finished Chapter 1. I found several points troubling, but none moreso than this one -- mentioned earlier but not discussed at length:

“certain American generals, in a last-minute bid for glory, o..."

That section was disturbing, hard to fathom the justification for this. The link and the info you cited tells some of the story, thanks for adding it. I'm not sure that Pershing praising Marshall translates into Marshall embodying the exact same qualities as Pershing. Is that the connection you are making? Or just pointing out Pershing's failings?

[Matthew]

What connection am I making?

I am pointing out a certain "weirdness" to the structure of the story Persico is trying to tell here that I can't really explain, but I think this example shows it. Just look at the quoted paragraph and the ones immediately before and after it (all on page 33 of the Nook version).

Para. 1: Pershing is mentioned for the first time. He criticizes and Marshall's division at inspection and Marshall stand up to him. Pershing is impressed and begins to rely on Marshall.

Para. 2: "Certain American generals" (unnamed) order the troops out of the trenches. "Marshall is nearly killed by a bomb blast." (passive voice)

Para. 3: "Marshall remained at Pershing's side for the next five years serving as aide-de-camp."

This is all in a single page. And Pershing is not mentioned at all in Paragraph 2. It would have been easy enough to say something like "Pershing nearly got Marshall killed on 11/11/11." But he is explicitly contorting the way he tells the story to avoid saying that Pershing nearly got Marshall killed through Pershing's poor judgment.

And if he had said it, it would have completely changed the tenor of the story. You'd be asking, "Why did Marshall remain so loyal to Pershing after what happened on November 11?" You'd be asking, "Did Marshall agree with Pershing and his last minute bid for glory?" But by removing Pershing from that second paragraph, you avoid a whole slew of questions that would seem natural if you left him in.

Also, attacking because you want to 'teach them a lesson" or you "did not trust the Germans" is not exactly the same thing as a "last minute bid for glory" (nor, really are they same as each other.) I'm not sure which motivation dominated, but I think the "last minute bid for glory" theory would require some extra explanation, and it stuck out like a sore thumb to me -- prompting me to do a little extra research and finding the Pershing connection.

[Matthew]

There were a few parts in Chapter 1 that struck me as "off" and inspired me to research separately. And in each case, I found things that were different than I assumed from reading Persico. Not that what he said was wrong, but that he was leading me to assume wrong things. Of course there's to know, but since he was in every other paragraph and could have fit there, I almost feel like Pershing was in the first draft of that paragraph, and was taken out for some reason. I don't know why.

[Alisa]

Matthew wrote: "There were a few parts in Chapter 1 that struck me as "off" and inspired me to research separately. And in each case, I found things that were different than I assumed from reading Persico. Not tha..."

Thanks for that additional thought. We also post additional info on many of the people and events mentioned in the book in the glossary entries. Most of Chapter one is coverd in the Glossary part one, you might also check there if you are researching on your own as there are handy links and books, etc. We are also adding the sources mentioned in the book's bibliography thread to the bibliography discussion thread here. You can also feel free to add to them.

Each author and historian will certainly have their own analysis and story to tell, and readers draw their own conclusions.

If you have a question for the author, we have a Q&A thread set up for him. He is checking in regularly answering questions periodically.

Critical thinking is part of any good reading experience. The book will evolve, good to have you posting and sharing your thoughts here. Maybe this topic will evolve further in the weeks ahead.

Thanks Matthew.

[Bentley, Group Founder, Leader, Chief]

Matthew - you are doing a very careful reading and you raise some questions that you might want to ask Mr. Persico who is a guest on our site and is answering questions. Just ask them in a respectful and civil way and I am sure that he will be very interested in your perspective. Every author has to pick and choose what to put in or what to leave out and it may not be that he wanted you to feel one way or another but he only had so much room to relate the story he wanted to tell with the facts he selected.

Like I said, be respectful and be civil which you always have been and ask specific questions on the Q&A thread and I am sure that Mr. Persico will respond.

Right now, he is having the same issues that many folks have had with windows and internet explorer - so I hope that he is able to be back on soon.

[Bentley, Group Founder, Leader, Chief]

Matthew wrote: "Finished Chapter 1. I found several points troubling, but none moreso than this one -- mentioned earlier but not discussed at length:

“certain American generals, in a last-minute bid for glory, o..."

Matthew I totally agree with you on the point about the generals' last minute bid for glory - how horrifying that they would sacrifice a person's life, someone's son or husband to that sort of thing.

Having said that - and you did provide your backup material which was not extensive (we thank you for that here - on the discussion thread) - we do welcome any and all citations and links on the glossary thread if you have them and any books themselves cited properly on the bibliography thread.

But I have to tell you I was most disturbed that commanders would do this and sacrifice life on either side after they KNEW an armistice had been signed.

You are correct in asking the question. Again different times and public sentiment helped Pershing I suppose - War is horrific and how you can even make it seem honorable or ethical is beyond me and the folks who promote war are in dubious standing and I am always bewildered how they cite God as being on their side. It is hard to grasp how honorable things can be done in the wake of the killing of other folks. We have had situations in World War II where there really was the choice - kill or be killed - and that is a horrible situation to be in and soldiers have to face that every single day and I think it must be difficult; they must have to desensitize themselves.

I imagine a commander like Pershing in charge of the largest combined force at that time and maybe ever - also became desensitized and did not value every man's life more than some objective or deep seated retribution for something he himself made a judgement call on.

[Bentley, Group Founder, Leader, Chief]

Matthew wrote: "If I don’t say I hate war, then people are going to think I don’t hate war. If I say we’re going to get into this war, people will think I want us in it. If I don’t say I won’t send our sons to fig..."

Matthew I did my best to follow the circular thinking - but I think you are saying that most folks say certain things or do not say certain things to create impressions about themselves or not and presidents are not exempt but they have a bigger responsibility to get it right and not create a "false impression" for the wrong or the right reasons.

[Bentley, Group Founder, Leader, Chief]

G wrote: "Parents lie to their young children all the time, for their supposed greater good. Perhaps FDR saw his role as 'in loco parentis' to the American people, and lied to them for what he saw as their g..."

G I understand but truth can hurt or it can set folks on the right course - but in the end I think that really is all presidents have - do you trust them or not.

[Bentley, Group Founder, Leader, Chief]

Peter wrote: "There are different flavors of lies.

First, not all statements are verifiable as true or false. There are things we believe to be true, but that turn out not to be. These are mistakes, not lies. ..."

I see you point.

[Bentley, Group Founder, Leader, Chief]

Matthew wrote: "We will also see that once the US becomes allied with Britain, the number of personalities with which FDR can agree or disagree triples:

Maybe, but in the Introduction, we seem to already be coun..."

We understand your point of view.

[Bentley, Group Founder, Leader, Chief]

Steven wrote: "Matthew wrote: "I have just finished the Introduction, and read the comments on this thread pertaining to it. Am I the only one who found the arguments interesting, but very muddled? Maybe he is ..."

Steven very true - and you cannot please them all (smile)

[Matthew]

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.

Just doing to some fact checking of stuff that seemed odd. I do not believe that this is completely accurate.

Dewey Short did, in fact, ask for a "recapitulation" instead of a "reconsideration." When the recapitulation was over, however, he next asked for a "reconsideration," but the request was denied on the procedural ground that a "reconsideration" can only be requested by an individual who voted with the majority -- not because he had already asked for a recapitulation and somehow lost his chance. The Chapter implies that at the end of the recapitulation, the gavel was whacked and that was it. What actually happened was this:

The Speaker [Rayburn]: . . . [T]he vote stands and the
bill is passed and without objection a motion to reconsider is laid
on the table. . . .
Mr. Short: Mr. Speaker, I was on my feet.
The Speaker: The Chair announced the vote before the
recapitulation. There were no changes whatsoever and the Chair
announced that the vote stood and the bill was passed, and without
objection a motion to reconsider was laid on the table, and there
was no objection.
Mr. Short: Mr. Speaker, I object, and I demand recognition. I
wanted to move to recapitulate the vote by which the bill was
passed.
The Speaker: That has already been done.
Mr. Short: I mean to reconsider the vote by which the bill was
passed.
The Speaker: The vote has been recapitulated.
Mr. Short: I meant to reconsider the vote by which the bill was
passed.
Mr. [Earl C.] Michener (of Michigan): Mr. Speaker, a
parliamentary inquiry.
The Speaker: The gentleman will state it.
Mr. Michener: Mr. Speaker, there is no use getting excited
about this.
The Speaker: The Chair trusts the gentleman from Michigan does
not think the Chair is excited.
Mr. Michener: The only thing that would make me think it was
the speed with which the Speaker passed the bill and refused to
recognize the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Short), who was on the
floor.
The Speaker: The gentleman did not state for what purpose.
Mr. Short: Mr. Speaker, I did not have time. I wanted to move to
reconsider the vote by which the bill was passed.
The Speaker: The gentleman, in the first place, is not eligible
to make that motion.

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/GPO-HPRE...

The rules were clear to everyone that a Motion for Reconsideration could only be offered by a person who voted with the majority. Short had not, so was never eligible to offer a Motion for Reconsideration.

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/GPO-HPRE...

What had really happened was that Short had made a "mistake" (recapitulation instead of reconsideration), and Rayburn let him have it because it wouldn't matter. But if Short hadn't made a mistake, he just would have been denied in the first place, instead of after the recapitulation.

[Craig]

Wasn't the moral that you didn't mess with Sam Rayburn? Although when this House bill was up for vote, Rayburn was fairly new to the Speaker of the House role. Although his power in Washington certainly predated his freshman position at the time in his leadership role in the House.

[Alisa]

Interesting additional detail. Seems like the outcome would not have changed however.

[Alisa]

Craig wrote: "Wasn't the moral that you didn't mess with Sam Rayburn? Although when this House bill was up for vote, Rayburn was fairly new to the Speaker of the House role. Although his power in Washington ce..."

According to Sam Rayburn, no doubt about that!