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

[Matthew]

Wasn't the moral that you didn't mess with Sam Rayburn?

I agree.

[Matthew]

Chapter 1's discussion of the draft focuses entirely on the "peacetime" (for America) draft of 1940 and the peacetime renewal in 1941. There is no discussion of induction practices after Pearl Harbor.

In discussing sports figures, the Chapter reads (Nook p. 22):

"In the end, standouts like the Cleveland Indians' Bob Feller, the New York Yankees' Phil Rizzuto, and the Detroit Tigers' Most Valuable Player, Hank Greenberg, were all classified iA. So was teh world heavyweight champion, Joe Louis.

Ten days after the lottery, 100,000 young Americans were out of civvies and into khaki and olive drab."

A natural reading of these parts are that these four individuals were all peacetime draftees. In fact, only Hank Greenberg missed any playing time before Pearl Harbor, after being drafted in early 1941. He was discharged on December 5, 1941 when the rules changed to make people over 28 ineligible. Two days later was Pearl Harbor, and Hank (re-)enlisted voluntarily before the 1942 season.

http://www.baseball-almanac.com/artic...

Feller was granted a deferment as sole provider for his family until the war began. Therefore, he was able to become the first major athlete to enlist, signing up the day after Pearl Harbor.

http://www.navalhistory.org/2010/12/1...

Joe Louis is an interested case because, as the only black athlete mentioned, was more likely to be a victim (or beneficiary, if you chose to look at it that way) of the all-white racist draft boards that disproportionately failed to draft qualified black individuals. He also was never really "drafted," but rather enlisted several weeks after Feller, saying of his voluntary decision to leave integrated prizefighting for the segregated army: "Lots of things wrong with America, but Hitler ain't going to fix them."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Louis
http://www.nationalww2museum.org/asse...

Phil Rizzuto, meanwhile, may have been classified 1A "in the end," but during the period discussed in this chapter, he was classified 3A, and granted a deferment due to the fact that his parents relied upon his income. Rizzuto played for the Yankees all the way through the World Series of 1941 and 1942 before filing joining the military in 1943.

http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid...

All served honorably, but I found it odd to discuss all four of them in the context of the pre-war draft, when their situations were all so distinct, and only one of them was actually drafted in peacetime.

[Alisa]

Matthew wrote: "Chapter 1's discussion of the draft focuses entirely on the "peacetime" (for America) draft of 1940 and the peacetime renewal in 1941. There is no discussion of induction practices after Pearl Har..."

We may read about post Pearl Harbor draft practices later in the book, but I suspect there is a substantial difference between pre- and post- Pearl Harbor draft and enlistment figures. I would expect there to be many differences but ultimately these men served in some capacity. Didn't the sentiment in the country change after Pearl Harbor?

[G]

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..."

In another book I am reading, a biography of Woodrow Wilson, the author, in describing FDR as Assistant Secretary of the Navy says he was appreciated "despite the young man's often flighty manner, furtive condescension, and occasional disloyalty".

It appears as if he carried these traits over to his presidency. I think this was a nice succinct summary of some of FDR's less admirable traits.


by John Milton Cooper Jr. (no photo)

[Alisa]

That is an interesting insight, G. The 'occasional disloyalty' surprises me a little, but the rest of it seems in keeping with what has been described about his mannerisms so far.

You have the elements of the citation correct. You can just put (no photo) next to the author link when there is no author photo available.

[Jill]

We know that in his role of Assistant Secretary of the Navy under Wilson, he went against advice and sometimes acted against orders and it was seen as "disloyalty" to his superiors.
We might think of the "occasional disloyalty" while President, in terms of his either overriding his advisers or in some cases, planning and directing military plans without consulting anyone. But I don't think "disloyalty" would be the best word......it was more FDR's attitude of "I'm in charge".

[Alisa]

Jill wrote: "We know that in his role of Assistant Secretary of the Navy under Wilson, he went against advice and sometimes acted against orders and it was seen as "disloyalty" to his superiors.
We might think ..."

I was thinking about this, and that kind of in-charge posturing certainly makes sense. FDR impresses me as a guy with an imposing and big personality not easily overshadowed by anyone. That is bound to prompt this sort of view by others.

[G]

Alisa wrote: "That is an interesting insight, G. The 'occasional disloyalty' surprises me a little, but the rest of it seems in keeping with what has been described about his mannerisms so far.

You have the ..."

Thanks. Fixed it. I thought maybe there was one someplace and I just couldn't find it!

[G]

Jill wrote: "We know that in his role of Assistant Secretary of the Navy under Wilson, he went against advice and sometimes acted against orders and it was seen as "disloyalty" to his superiors.
We might think ..."

I agree that's okay when you are president, but as assistant secretary I am not so sure. In any case, it tells us something about his developing management style.

[Jill]

Exactly, G. As Assistant Secretary, hie flaunting of the lines of authority could have resulted in dismissal. Not so when was president and his larger-than-life personality took over duties that were probably outside of his purview.

[Alisa]

Jill wrote: "Exactly, G. As Assistant Secretary, hie flaunting of the lines of authority could have resulted in dismissal. Not so when was president and his larger-than-life personality took over duties that we..."

And an indication of someone who will always test the boundaries. Hmmm.

[Phil]

I found it interesting that much of the debate, in 1940, over whether or not to extend the service of draftees seemed to hinge on people's perceptions of the extent to which Germany posed a threat to the United States. There's a brief mention of concerns about Pearl Harbor being undermanned, but most of the arguments that Persico relates seem focused on events in Europe. I know the attack on Pearl Harbor was unexpected, but it seems odd that the threat from Japan was so peripheral to these discussions.

[Steven]

Jill wrote: "...seen as 'disloyalty' to his superiors [when he was Assistant Secretary of the Navy under Wilson]...while President...it was more FDR's attitude of 'I'm in charge.'"

Perhaps the word to describe this personality trait of FDR's when he was President might be "high handed." I think that term must have come to the minds of some FDR's most senior military men (perhaps even Marshall) because of the way FDR would occasionally fail to consult, or even afterwards inform, his most senior military men...[rest omitted because of spoiler; don't want to get ahead of ourselves; see Message #3 in the "Book as a Whole and Final Thoughts" discussion thread for full account].

[Craig]

Phil wrote: "I found it interesting that much of the debate, in 1940, over whether or not to extend the service of draftees seemed to hinge on people's perceptions of the extent to which Germany posed a threat ..."

I feel your question brings up a deeper debate that has a basis in economic, geographic, social, and ideological terms that is probably beyond the scope of this book. Maybe the book will touch more fully on the topic later (I'm only two chapters into it as I'm trying to adhere to the reading schedule here), but I can certainly see how the 1940 mentality was that Germany posed a greater threat to U.S. interests than Japan.

[Alisa]

Craig wrote: "Phil wrote: "I found it interesting that much of the debate, in 1940, over whether or not to extend the service of draftees seemed to hinge on people's perceptions of the extent to which Germany po..."

I think that is right. Looking back it is surprising there was not more concern about Japan at the time, but also remember that there was still a great deal of instability in Europe. FDR wanted to and viewed it as necessary to support Britain.

[Alisa]

Steven wrote: "Jill wrote: "...seen as 'disloyalty' to his superiors [when he was Assistant Secretary of the Navy under Wilson]...while President...it was more FDR's attitude of 'I'm in charge.'"

Perhaps the wor..."

I can see your point.

[Phillip]

I am always surprised at how prior to the declaration of war how unsure the population was that Germany really was a threat and how much support they had in high places. Same thing preceeded WWI I think.

[Steven]

Phil wrote: "...I know the attack on Pearl Harbor was unexpected, but it seems odd that the threat from Japan was so peripheral to these discussions."

I am not sure it was peripheral to these discussions, despite Persico's lack of detail in this area. It is not true that the US government and the US people did not sense the threat of war with Japan prior to Pearl Harbor. One only has to take a look at the Wikipedia article on "Attack on Pearl Harbor" to see what actions the US government was taking prior to Pearl Harbor and to read about a Gallup poll taken shortly before the attack on Pearl Harbor. But since Persico covers Pearl Harbor in Chapter 5 and this thread is about Chapter 1, I really cannot say any more here.

[Alisa]

Yes, Steven, and I also think given that we are talking about 1939 in these chapters the perception of threat from Japan was different than it was later.

[Steven]

Alisa wrote: "Yes, Steven, and I also think given that we are talking about 1939 in these chapters the perception of threat from Japan was different than it was later."

Even if we limit ourselves just to 1939 and earlier, we can see from the Wikipedia article that tensions were rising and US public opinion was already shifting against Japan:

“…War between Japan and the United States had been a possibility of which each nation had been aware (and developed contingency plans for) since the 1920s, though tensions did not begin to grow seriously until Japan's 1931 invasion of Manchuria. Over the next decade, Japan continued to expand into China, leading to all-out war between those countries in 1937. Japan spent considerable effort trying to isolate China and achieve sufficient resource independence to attain victory on the mainland; the "Southern Operation" was designed to assist these efforts. From December 1937, events such as the Japanese attack on the USS Panay and the Nanking Massacre (more than 200,000 killed in indiscriminate massacres) swung public opinion in the West sharply against Japan and increased Western fear of Japanese expansion, which prompted the United States, the United Kingdom, and France to provide loan assistance for war supply contracts to the Republic of China…”

Attack on Pearl Harbor

[Alisa]

All true Steven, to be sure Japan was on the radar. Compared to the concern about what was happening in Europe I'm not sure it was as big of a concern. Then on the heals of coming through a depression and the economic conditions.

[Phil]

Steven wrote: "Phil wrote: "...I know the attack on Pearl Harbor was unexpected, but it seems odd that the threat from Japan was so peripheral to these discussions."

I am not sure it was peripheral to these disc..."

Well, sure, I'm aware that the United States was concerned about Japan's actions in Asia and the Pacific, but in the debate over HR 10132 specifically, it seems people's perception of the seriousness of the German threat to US interests figured more heavily into whether or not they were in favor of extending the service of peacetime draftees. Or perhaps this was just what Persico chose to focus on at this point.

[G]

I think you have to look at the distribution of the US population at that time as well. Even then, the East Coast had more prominence in political thinking and Europe had more immediacy for those living in the east. Most of the immigrants from the turn of the twentieth century came from Europe and still had family there. FDR was quite aware of his constituency.

[Peter]

G wrote: "I think you have to look at the distribution of the US population at that time as well. Even then, the East Coast had more prominence in political thinking and Europe had more immediacy for those l..."

Indeed. In 1940, the population of the US was 132 million and that of CA was 7 million. Today, they are roughly 300 million and 38 million.

[Steven]

Germany or Japan, which more concerned Americans?

I wish there was a Gallup poll from 1939 to tell us which concerned the average American more in 1939, Germany or Japan. There are a couple of facts that would suggest that Americans should have expected the eruption of war with Japan as more likely than a war with Germany.

1. In 1939 there were two powerful buffer states between the US and Germany: Britain and France. Looking west there was no real buffer state between us and Japan. On the contrary, the US had a strong military presence in the Philippines, separated from Japan by only 2000 miles of open ocean.

2. In 1939 Japan was waging a brutal war of conquest with China and casting a covetous eye toward parts of Southeast Asia, even closer to the Philippines. In December 1937 when a Japanese army had captured Nanking, the capital of the Republic of China, the Japanese massacred over 200,000 civilians and unarmed soldiers, sunk a US gunboat near Nanking, and a month later assaulted John Allison, the consul at the American embassy in Nanking.

3. In 1939 Germany had an insignificant naval surface fleet compared to the US. With Japan the situation was very different. The Washington Naval treaty of 1921 had limited the size of the navies of Britain, the US, and Japan to a ratio of 5:5:3 respectively. In December 1934, however, Japan gave notice of its intention to terminate the treaty, and in 1936 began ignoring the treaty's limits.

Of course, Germany had a large submarine fleet, but I don't think in 1939 there was much fear of Germany sinking US merchant vessels or US navy ships.

[Matthew]

It seems reasonable to assume that Americans rightly predicted that Germany was more of a threat to "the World," but that Japan was more of a threat to "us".

The debate about whether to enter the War was not really a debate over whether Germany would invade England, but over whether Americans should care enough to enter the war because of it.

[Alisa]

G wrote: "I think you have to look at the distribution of the US population at that time as well. Even then, the East Coast had more prominence in political thinking and Europe had more immediacy for those l..."

That would certainly impact public sentiment. As well, many of the European immigrants were escaping oppressive conditions which would also influence their thinking.

[Alisa]

Steven wrote: " Germany or Japan, which more concerned Americans?

I wish there was a Gallup poll from 1939 to tell us which concerned the average American more in 1939, Germany or Japan. There are a couple of fa..."

Interesting juxtaposition of what was going on at the time in other parts of the world. There was still an uncertain economy at home that had to take a lot of attention away from what was going on elsewhere.

[Jill]

Matthew wrote: "It seems reasonable to assume that Americans rightly predicted that Germany was more of a threat to "the World," but that Japan was more of a threat to "us".

The debate about whether to enter the ..."

Good point, Mathew. Most Americans were not willing to get into a "foreign war" to save England. That harkens back to the feeling of isolationism that was rife during the time of WWI. Why send our boys to be killed for someone else's war. I do think, however, that the average American was more aware of what was happening in Europe than they were in the events of the "inscrutable East". Did they see it as a threat to the US?......I doubt it.

[Steven]

Mathew, Peter, Phil, G, Alisa, Jill, and myself have all recently commented in this Chapter One discussion thread on the question of to what degree America (average citizens or military leaders) were concerned about war with Germany and, in contrast, concerned about war with Japan.

Jill's comment, one of the most recent on this issue ended with the following statement: ...I do think, however, that the average American was more aware of what was happening in Europe than they were in the events of the 'inscrutable East.' Did they see it as a threat to the US? I doubt it."

I disagree with Jill's statement. So I have gathered together some information about what was going on in Europe and in Asia during the thirties and up through late in 1941, together with my own opinions on what this suggests about the relative degree of, and type of, concern that America likely had about these two different possibilities of war.

Although Persico's Chapter One goes through August 18, 1941 (with FDR's signing of the draft extension bill), it is true that my new comment makes an allusion to the convoy system (covered by Persico in a later chapter), and also cites a Gallup poll about the likelihood of war with Japan, a poll taken a few months after the signing of the draft extension bill (but still before Pearl Harbor); and it is also possible that my new comment might be considered expansive. For all of these reasons I have chosen to place my comment on the "Whole Book--Final Thoughts" discussion thread.

I do not think my new comment contains any real spoilers, but I thought I should play it safe. If any of you are interested in reading this new comment on this topic, it is #4 on this "Whole Book" discussion thread and is entitled: The Fear of Choosing to Go to War vs. the Fear of Being Attacked

[Jill]

Thanks, Steven. I added some comments in response in the "Whole Book" discussion. Like you, I think they may get a little ahead of Chapter One.

[Matthew]

The Gallup Polls from 1941 were interesting. What struck me was this Poll from mid-December 1941 -- After Pearl Harbor and the declarations of War against Japan and Germany, but before America had really been "attacked" by Germany.

Which country is the greater threat to America's future — Germany or Japan?

Germany........................... 64%

Japan.............................. 15

Equal threats........................ 15

No opinion......................... 6

If I had guessed, I would have thought that Americans would think Japan was a much bigger threat, since Japan was the one who had actually bombed America. But, I guess that's why they do the polls.

Persico seemed to imply that Roosevelt was going out on a limb in some way in focusing the war effort on Germany, but it appears that he was well within the mainstream of American thought.

[Alisa]

Thanks all. I think we will see more about this in later chapters.

I know it is challenging to keep your comments limited to what is happening in this first Chapter knowing some of the events that occur later. Everyone has done a great job respecting the boundaries. More to come.

[Bryan]

Matthew wrote: "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."

Great stuff, Matthew, very interesting. I read the great citation and it looks like it is only in a tie vote that the member who is in the majority cannot call for a reconsideration. I think Short couldn't go any farther because his motion came too late.

[Bentley, Group Founder, Leader, Chief]

Matthew wrote: "The Gallup Polls from 1941 were interesting. What struck me was this Poll from mid-December 1941 -- After Pearl Harbor and the declarations of War against Japan and Germany, but before America had..."

Japan had gotten a lot of bad press in its dealing with the US and probably in Japan vice versa. There were a lot of red flags before Pearl Harbor. But let us pause for awhile until we get to that point and focus on the chapters themselves in these threads. You can take hypotheses and expansive discussions to the Book as a Whole thread as always and we can continue the discussion there.

[Matthew]

I will attempt to be more clear in tying my comments to the relevant portion of the text.

In particular, on page 13 (Nook version) of the Introduction, Persico states: "Even after the American people seethed with vengeance over the neark attack on Pearl Harbor, FDR never wavered from his position that the war against Germany retained priority."

I did not question this sentence, and I also assumed that Americans would have been more concerned with Japan (who had physically attacked American soil) than Germany (which had not). I was therefore surprised to see the Gallup Poll that I cited, showing that far from making a "brave" decision (in the "Yes, Minister" sense of the word), Roosevelt was in fact reflecting the popular will. The book led me to believe that Roosevelt was going out on a limb, but in fact that Gallup Poll closely reflects the 85%/15% division that Roosevelt oversaw.

[Alisa]

Matthew wrote: "I will attempt to be more clear in tying my comments to the relevant portion of the text.

In particular, on page 13 (Nook version) of the Introduction, Persico states: "Even after the American peo..."

Thanks Matthew, for the clarification.

[Bentley, Group Founder, Leader, Chief]

Matthew wrote: "I will attempt to be more clear in tying my comments to the relevant portion of the text.

In particular, on page 13 (Nook version) of the Introduction, Persico states: "Even after the American peo..."

I think that there is one that thing that FDR always knew - just where the American people stood - he had large political attennae. Now whether he decided to go along with the people or start a campaign of persuasion though his chats or other means always was a choice and another decision he made at the time. I think he was a good poker player - maybe not always as good a bridge player - but Matthew I see your point and we appreciate the clarification.

Clearly FDR made some brave decisions but others not so much - I think he was always juggling the chips he had and what he could afford to do.

[Alisa]

Polka? I bet you meant poker. :-)
FDR shows us his public opinion savvy, that's for sure. Something he no doubt used aptly to get elected a third time.

[Bentley, Group Founder, Leader, Chief]

Well typing and spelling sometimes get in the way of each other.

[Alisa]

Bentley wrote: "Well typing and spelling sometimes get in the way of each other."

Yes I know this well. :-) The word polka makes me laugh for some reason.