Is there a book which analyzes Roosevelt's leadership in WW2?

[OpanaPointer]

The New Dealers' War: FDR and the War Within World War II
by Thomas Fleming

Haven't read this one yet, one of my friends trolled me with it at Xmas. :roll:

[Carl Schwamberger]

'The Warhawks' by Mark L Chadwin discusses the pro war or anti nazi interventionists who worked with or in paralle to Roosevelt in involving the US in the European war. At 277 pages the text is far to slim for the subject. Roosevelt did not drag the US into the war singlehandedly. While the isolationist & America First movements have some mention in the literature the interventionists are much less known. Their activity needs to be understood in order to understand the larger view of the US participation in the war.

[OpanaPointer]

'The Warhawks' by Mark L Chadwin discusses the pro war or anti nazi interventionists who worked with or in paralle to Roosevelt in involving the US in the European war. At 277 pages the text is far to slim for the subject. Roosevelt did not drag the US into the war singlehandedly. While the isolationist & America First movements have some mention in the literature the interventionists are much less known. Their activity needs to be understood in order to understand the larger view of the US participation in the war.

The Cautious Crusade is a complementary text to that one.

[OpanaPointer]

'The Warhawks' by Mark L Chadwin discusses the pro war or anti nazi interventionists who worked with or in paralle to Roosevelt in involving the US in the European war. At 277 pages the text is far to slim for the subject. Roosevelt did not drag the US into the war singlehandedly. While the isolationist & America First movements have some mention in the literature the interventionists are much less known. Their activity needs to be understood in order to understand the larger view of the US participation in the war.

Review from Amazon:

When I saw this book, entitled in the edition I read The Hawks of World War II, I thought it might be about congressional figures. It is not. It deals with the group, the Fight for Freedom Committe, which beginning about June 1940 called for a declaration of war against Hitler. While I know I was young during that time, I do not remember hearing about this group, altho I well remember William Allen White's group devoted to urging support for Britain as a way of defending the US. The group which this book considers was a more radical group, since they advocated war be declared. The group did valuable work in regard to the exchange of 50 destroyers for bases, and played an important role in preparing public opinion to accept that procedure. It also made FDR's actions seem more modest and more acceptable to the bulk of the American people. The Japanese and Hitler by their acts in December 1941 did the greatest job however in uniting the American people--and the organization which this book tells of became unnecessary.

[OpanaPointer]

Anybody got any books on the Committee to Defend America by Aiding the Allies?

[OpanaPointer]

Just ordered Chadwin's book.

[rcocean]

Actually, its extremely difficult to find a book that critically looks at FDR's leadership in WW2. He made many mistakes.

-The failure to build DE's in 1941-942
-His policy of "Unconditional Surrender"
-The criminal "Morgenthau Plan"
-His Unrequited Love for Stalin
-His "Italy First" Strategy
-The Failure to build Aircraft Carriers before Pearl Harbor instead of battleships
-The basing of the Pacific fleet at Pearl Harbor despite the inadequate defenses
-The refusal to call the Filipino Army into Federal Service in the Fall of 1940
-The botched Italian Surrender in 1943
-The cruel "No Surrender" order based on to MacArthur in feb 1942.

In the United States at least, FDR is now approaching the status once accorded to Lincoln. People don't criticize him in any real sense- despite his massive errors and blunders. People just don't want to hear it. You can only sell books by telling people fairly tales about the wise, all knowing leader, who saved the world from Hitler.

[Sheldrake]

Actually, its extremely difficult to find a book that critically looks at FDR's leadership in WW2. He made many mistakes.

-The failure to build DE's in 1941-942
-His policy of "Unconditional Surrender"
-The criminal "Morgenthau Plan"
-His Unrequited Love for Stalin
-His "Italy First" Strategy
-The Failure to build Aircraft Carriers before Pearl Harbor instead of battleships
-The basing of the Pacific fleet at Pearl Harbor despite the inadequate defenses
-The refusal to call the Filipino Army into Federal Service in the Fall of 1940
-The botched Italian Surrender in 1943
-The cruel "No Surrender" order based on to MacArthur in feb 1942.

In the United States at least, FDR is now approaching the status once accorded to Lincoln. People don't criticize him in any real sense- despite his massive errors and blunders. People just don't want to hear it. You can only sell books by telling people fairly tales about the wise, all knowing leader, who saved the world from Hitler.

wow. It sounds as if you could writer the book yourself and have pretty much made your mind up. However, it is difficult to prove that any of the "mistakes" listed above resulted in a worse outcome than the alternative choices.

Just take "unconditional surrender". This was a decision by FDR and taken without consultation with or agreement by his British, or any other Allies. On the down side, it discouraged German internal opposition to Hitler, and encouraged the Germans to fight to the end. However, there is a different perspective., from a coalition partner keen to ensure that the war was won. The biggest problems with a coalition is keeping it together. A skilled enemy will try to divide the coalition. The western allies needed the red army to fight the Germans. Unconditional surrender ensured that there could be no opportunity for the Germans to play off one of the United Nations against the others with a divisive peace offer. Some Germans hoped that eventually the capitalist west would unite with them against what they saw as the communist menace, of the Soviet Union. They weren't wholly wrong, but not until after the defeat of the Nazis.

If you want to debate these they really could be in separate threads.

[OpanaPointer]

Actually, its extremely difficult to find a book that critically looks at FDR's leadership in WW2. He made many mistakes.

-The failure to build DE's in 1941-942

Adm. King didn't think we needed them, and other construction had priority.

-His policy of "Unconditional Surrender"

You would have made a deal with the Nazis?

-The criminal "Morgenthau Plan"

Never implemented. Morgenthau was well known for his hyperbole.

-His Unrequited Love for Stalin

Whatever.

-His "Italy First" Strategy

First I've heard of that. The Mediterranean theater was where the American forces would get seasoned, as well as giving the British greater confidence of holding their main route to India.

-The Failure to build Aircraft Carriers before Pearl Harbor instead of battleships

How many carriers were built after the Washingont Naval Treaty? How many battleships.

-The basing of the Pacific fleet at Pearl Harbor despite the inadequate defenses

The defenses were fine, it was the Army general who knew not his rectum from a hole in the grou.

-The refusal to call the Filipino Army into Federal Service in the Fall of 1940

Wouldn't have made them better soldiers, they just didn't have the time to get ready.

-The botched Italian Surrender in 1943

They were Italians, they're going to screw things up.

-The cruel "No Surrender" order based on to MacArthur in feb 1942.

Where did this come from?

In the United States at least, FDR is now approaching the status once accorded to Lincoln. People don't criticize him in any real sense- despite his massive errors and blunders. People just don't want to hear it. You can only sell books by telling people fairly tales about the wise, all knowing leader, who saved the world from Hitler.

That's just silly. There are several books on the shelf behind me that criticize FDR. Most of them are as silly as the list above.

[OpanaPointer]

Just take "unconditional surrender". This was a decision by FDR and taken without consultation with or agreement by his British, or any other Allies.

Wrong. The only surprise for Churchill was the announcement at that point in time. The heads of state and their military and political advisors had discussed it beforehand. Lazy scholarship misses this quite often, the "Gotcha" is easier and doesn't need to be thought about.

[rcocean]

Whatever

Exactly.

[rcocean]

On the down side, it discouraged German internal opposition to Hitler, and encouraged the Germans to fight to the end. However, there is a different perspective., from a coalition partner keen to ensure that the war was won. The biggest problems with a coalition is keeping it together. A skilled enemy will try to divide the coalition. The western allies needed the red army to fight the Germans. Unconditional surrender ensured that there could be no opportunity for the Germans to play off one of the United Nations against the others with a divisive peace offer.

FDR didn't want to deal with the "German internal opposition". As proved by his support for the criminal and inhuman "Morgenthau Plan" and his response to various peace feelers/approaches from German resistance leaders, he didn't just hate Hitler, he hated Germany and wanted the Germans punished and destroyed as economic and political power.

OTOH, his attitude toward Stalin was exact opposite. Stalin was "Uncle Joe". We were to give Uncle Joe every thing he wanted - including Eastern Europe - and hope he would be our "buddy" after WW2. And if not, well too bad. FDR literally never met met a Communist he didn't like. That may sound like an exaggeration, but go read his speeches/writings on the FDR Library website.

[OpanaPointer]

You're a Republican.

[Aber]

Actually, its extremely difficult to find a book that critically looks at FDR's leadership in WW2.

Similarly, as far as I can tell, the same applies to Eisenhower.

[rcocean]

I agree about Ike being almost free from Criticism for his WW 2 performance. The only books I can think of are Nigel Hamilton's bio of Montgomery, and Arthur Bryant's Bio of Alanbrooke.