Rating: 
Summary: FDR at the Bar of History, yet again
Review: Thomas Fleming has written a book that is a compelling mix of invective and fact. It focuses on those aspects of Roosevelt that are certainly to fault. His tendency to manipulate those closest to him to his own ends have certainly been well chronicled elsewhere. But Fleming's pricipal aim is to challenge FDR's historical standing as a an architect of victory in World War II.
He begins by building a case for FDR sneaking America into a war with Germany. First part of this strtegem was the leaking of war plans of the United States Government to the Press. Hitler had it in his mind that the U.S. might come after him. Hitler doesn't want a war but the nasty FDR just won't realize. Next we give naval assistance and ship aid to Britain on mercant ships. When merchant ships get sunk, FDR tries to use these incidents to further American entry into the war on the side of the British. But this doesn't worked as FDR had hoped, so he turns to provoking Germany's Axis partner, Japan. So by boycotting shipments of oil to Japan and dispatching the American Fleet to Pearl Harbor, FDR provokes the under-rated Japanese to attack at Pearl Harbor. Fleming does not say that FDR expected the attack on December 7, 1941. But he does say that FDR sent the fleet to Hawaii, defenceless from Japanese cunning protected by American racism about capabilities of the Japanese that he has provoked. The strategic precariousness of the United States after the attack and into 1942 and beyond, flows from the racism towards the Japanese from the attack.
But there is a particular flaw in Flemming in regards to the attack on Pearl Harbor, Roosevelt did not mandate any limitation on security of the Fleet at Pearl harbor. FDR may deserve some of the blame, but not all or most of it for the disaster on December 7.
This gives you an idea of the whole book. Some points such as racism creating problems for the Americans in the Pacific, are pretty hard to refute. But the suggestion that the attack at Pearl harbor was avoidable doesn't really address the whole matter. Fleming does make a convincing case that war for the United States didn't have to begin on December 7, 1941. But he makes no case for war being avoidable altogether had FDR stayed his hand.
President Clinton should read this book, because its probably a good indicator of the kind of treatment he may be getting 50 years from now.
Rating: 
Summary: A highly needed critical look at the New Deal and FDR.
Review: FDR's New Deal policies usually invoke warm fuzzy thoughts of how it brought the great depression to an end. Or how FDR guided the country through World War II and is glamorized in history books.Fleeming details how FDR went to arguably treasonous levels to provoke the Axis powers in the attacking the United States in a desperate attempt to enter the war while public opinion vastly opposed US involvement. How FDR bent to Stalin's will while alienating Churchill and never realized how comprised his administration was with Soviet agents. And how FDR carried on his lust for power even as he knew his own health was failing. The New Dealers War is insightful, intersting, and highly informative as it strips away misconceptions about the New Deal and FDR and takes a much needed critical look at the hard facts and history of the time.
Rating: 
Summary: Wow...you right wing conservatives...lol
Review: Horrible book, put it down before I started. Would have given 0 stars if I could. It never ceases to amaze me that so many right-wing conservatives feel it necessary to bash perhaps our greatest president in the brief history of the US. Who do you people have to look up to, Junior (aka Dubbya)...lol...I feel sorry for you people...I suppose that is why the southern confederate sympathizers prefer your party, less thought required. Remember, in the famous words of your leader W., "we must transition our world" One wonders how you make transition a verb?
Rating:
Summary: Disasterous Policy Not Often Mentioned
Review: Although it has been a long time since I have had any great respect for the presidency of Franklin Roosevelt, this book gave me insights into an aspect of his presidency which I had thought more successful. That is, the conduct of the war. I was already familiar with the disastrous effects of his economic policies during the depression which resulted in 1937's economic plunge. Also, I was familiar to some extent with the manipulations on FDR's part that led up to the war, his health problems, and to the disaster of the Yalta agreements. However, this book not only delved deeper into these subjects, but put them into context. For me, though, the real eye opener in this book was its revelation of the affect of FDR's stated policy of "unconditional surrender". I, like most people had never thought it through or even had questioned it. I did not even know there had been any controversy within the military about this policy. And I certainly had never realized the great consequences.
FDR made his demand for "unconditional surrender" at Casablanca the very day that the eventual defeat of Germany became obvious to most, if not all, of the German officers. It was the day in January of 1943 that the German army outside of Stalingrad was finally split in two. The day that its loss became inevitable. Until then, the Germans had a chance of defeating the Russians, after that, defeat was inevitable. (I had a friend who was a doctor in the army of Germany's allied Hungarian army at Stalingrad. He was one of less than 10% who returned. You could still see in his face, as he remembered the experience, the great horror and sadness that he must have gone through). Though there were to be many attempts made to oust the Nazis by German officers, they were never able to get the majority of officers to support them because of the "unconditional surrender" policy. Moreover, the attempts made by these officers to broker a peace agreement with the allies were always stopped by FDR. And these attempts were not made by low level officers. Admiral Canaris, head of German military intelligence, tried repeatedly and was eventually executed for doing so by Hitler. He had said to one of his deputies, General Erwin Lahousen upon learning of the demand: "You know, my dear Lahousen, the students of history will not need to trouble their heads after this war, as they did after the last, to determine who was guilty of starting it. The case is however different when we consider guilt for prolonging the war. I believe that the other side have now disarmed us of the last weapon with which we could have ended it. Unconditional surrender, no, our generals will not swallow that. Now I cannot see any solution." Major General Ira C. Eaker, commander of the U.S. Eighth Air Force seems to have agreed. He said: "A child knew that once you said this (unconditional surrender) to the Germans, they were going to fight to the last man. There wasn't a man who was actually fighting in the war whom I ever met who didn't think that this was about as stupid an operation as you could find." However, there was one man, who upon hearing of FDR's demand was euphoric. Dr. Joseph Goebbels, Hitler's propaganda chief, called it "world historical tomfoolery of the first order". He admitted to a colleague, "I should never have been able to think up so rousing a slogan. If our Western enemies tell us, we won't deal with you, our only aim is to destroy you . . . how can any German, whether he likes it or not, do anything but fight on with all his strength?"
So the war went on for more than three years. Millions more died. Cities were fire bombed and destroyed. The Soviets invaded Eastern Europe and remained for fifty years. All because FDR, almost completely on his own and without consulting either his military advisors or diplomats, decided on "unconditional surrender" as a policy. Where did he get this idea? He seems to have gotten it from a misreading of history. He seems to have thought that Grant had required Lee to surrender unconditionally (which he had not). However, even then Lee only had the authority to surrender his army, not a whole nation. In the history of the world previous to WW2 the only previous demand for unconditional surrender had been Rome's demand of Carthage. I think that this book is one which should be read by any serious student of history and especially those interested in the history of the 20th Century. The book begins with three quotes on history and the personalities which make it. One is especially appropriate. It is a quote from Harry Truman, the president that followed FDR and had to deal with many of the problems he had created. Unlike FDR, Truman knew history. He wrote: "There is nothing new in the world but the history you do not know." This is certainly history worth knowing.
Rating:
Summary: The truth will out.........eventually.
Review: Thomas Fleming is to be commended for his attempt to pierce
the myth of FDR. My only disappointment is that Mr.Fleming
was too temperate in his narrative. The fraud that was the
tenure of Franklin Delano Roosevelt deserves more scorn.
The only truely consequential good done by FDR is ridding himself
of the utopian Henry Wallace and finding Harry S Truman who
eventually mitigated some of the harm he had created.
The book I am really looking forward to is the one that explains how FDR presided over 10 years of economic depression,
and is celebrated for "saving us" from same.
Rating:
Summary: FDR: Fascism at Home to Combat Fascism Abroad
Review: Like a stake through a vampire's heart, Fleming's book pierces the sanctimonious hagiography surrounding the "official" version of FDR created by sycophantic court historians (such as Eric Larrabee) by bringing to light the bizarre spectacle of FDR's duplicity, deceit, and outright cruelty as he betrayed everyone from his enemies and friends to the millions of victims of fascism and communism around the world in his pursuit of arbitrary power while creating a home-grown version of American fascism. What is particularly striking is Fleming's ability to show that with every utterance FDR makes against Hitler in Europe, FDR himself imports to our shores almost verbatim the very policies enacted in Nazi Germany -- the only exceptions being that he retained the English language instead of substituting German and that his "concentration-camp light" program of incarcerating Japanese Americans at the behest of envious xenophobic California farmers fell short of the far more horrifying programs of Stalin and Hitler. Perhaps if FDR had had a freer hand and a little more time... It is hilarious that critics of this book try to "rehabilitate" the now-sullied reputation of FDR by telling us that in comparison to Stalin, Hitler, and other dictators of the 30s and 40s, FDR is really quite a good guy once you get to know him. This engaging book stands in marked contrast to the torpor-inducing writings of Larrabee who sanitizes the legacy of FDR by mercifully overlooking his capricious decision-making habits and unrelenting mean streak, not to mention his horrible betrayal of European Jews, Poles, and Ukrainians as he sought re-election by keeping a lid on the atrocities committed by his ally, Josef Stalin. This is an excellent companion to the Flynn biography (The Roosevelt Myth) as Fleming delves more deeply into an analysis of diplomatic communications surrounding FDR's fatal mistakes in WW2 and his machinations against his very own political allies at home and within the Democratic Party as he maneuvers to control his "spin" on events -- providing damning evidence of both FDR's ruthless nature and his bizarre admiration of Stalin, who now stands revealed as the most prolific practitioner of democide in the 20th century, far surpassing both Hitler and Mao (see the book, Death By Government, which catalogs these atrocities). Fleming also relates comical episodes that display the absurdity of FDR's wife Eleanor and the cadre of spiritualists who surrounded both of them like a cloud of flies. Some of her more whacked-out proposals included the appointment of dancers and actors over the programs to coordinate public safety in the event of a German invasion. These episodes are perfect complements to the record of nepotism and calumny already documented by Flynn in his book. For those who wish to see how half of the planet was turned over to despots on a silver platter, this book is too good to pass up. Perhaps just as valuable are the chapters that explore not only the failure of FDR's policies to bring the Great Depression to an end, but the impact they had on deepening it and prolonging it until it endured for nearly 18 years, in marked contrast to all previous recessions, all of which repaired themselves because politicians were not given free rein to "fix" them with stultifying and contradictory economic controls, threats, and the jailing of workers who dared to repair torn garments in the privacy of their own homes against the wishes of the likes of FDR. An excellent antidote to the common un-wisdom surrounging FDR.
Rating:
Summary: Tired of Recycled History?
Review: Although 628 pages in length, this book is concise and flows along nicely, and ACTUALLY PROVIDES A FRESH VIEW of a period which is usually made dull by fawning historians. BTW, Fleming is not a crazed liberal-basher (Truman comes off quite well). But theauthor is aloof enough to actually give a balanced account of FDR's role as a living, breathing politician. However, if one-dimensional books with FDR atop Mount Olympus make you feel good, look into Goodwin and the countless other rehashtorians.
Rating:
Summary: A Roosevelt Hater posing as an Historian.
Review: Fleming reveals himself as a sterotypical Roosevelt hater, the likes of which should be extinct by now. Fleming manages to put the worst possible face on everything Roosevelt did, and gives credence to all of FDR's enemies. There are always nay-sayers about any administration, especially one which actually attacks problems and does things. FDR, with all his pros and cons, was a complex, subtle, and yes, devious politician. Fleming fails to find the good because he didn't look for it. I rated this one star because the zero option was not available.
Rating:
Summary: A Controversial Look at FDR's War Policies
Review: The popular history of World War II and of the politics related to the war have understandably been colored for the past 56 years by nearly universal desires to glory in the victory and to draw the appropriate moral lessons concerning Nazism, military aggression and genocide.
Even now, a book such as Fleming's, which shines an unusual and harsh light on Franklin Roosevelt's war policies, will not be met with universal acclaim. The rewriting of history is too close to political argument in any circumstance, and in this case will run headlong into establishment shibboleths and the political myths underpinning America's major political parties.
The first issue to be covered by Fleming is America's entry into the war, Roosevelt's well-known manipulations, outright lies, and ongoing deceit in the cause of leading America intp the war, especially in light of the American people's pre December 7, 1941, vast opposition to entry into the war.
So much has been strangely buried by a half century of glorious propaganda. Fleming recalls for us the New Deal's failure to end the Great Depression, the embarrassingly umbilical relationship between Stalin's cynical policies vs. Hitler and the passions of America's left, Roosevelt's 1940 promise to the American electorate that, "your boys are not going to be sent into any foreign wars;" and the leak, probably by FDR himself, of the Pentagon's plans for war in Europe and that leak's likely causal relationship to Hitler's declaration of war against the United States, a result that FDR had been provocatively fishing for, with no success, for months.
Concerning the prosecution of the war, Fleming beats a drum of protest against FDR's policy of unconditional surrender. Roosevelt and many other New Dealers felt that it was imperative to obliterate, along with the Nazis, the German militarist culture, which had been ascendant since Bismarck, and which had brought Europe to war three times in as many generations. To maintain this unprecedented policy, Roosevelt, abetted by the British, studiously ignored clear and repeated signals, beginning as early as the Spring of 1942, from a prominent faction in the German military, that Hitler could and would be overthrown if a peace could be negotiated.
Fleming believes, with great force, and I believe great justice, that Roosevelt's policy was one of madness and murderousness. It may not be unreasonable to speculate that had a negotiated German surrender been attained by 1944 following the assassination of Hitler, only a fraction of the actual Jewish deaths would have occurred, and America and Britain would not have descended into the immoral savagery of their civilian bombing campaigns. The possibilities for other changes are virtually endless. While I believe that an early peace with Germany might well have lead to a different, less brutal end with Japan, Fleming is too eager to equate the impacts of FDR's policy on Germany and Japan. Here, I would protest that Japan had no group of able dissenters ready to abandon Japan's war aims in exchange for peace. All of Japan had been immersed for a generation in the prospect of a great Japanese empire dominating all of East and Southeast Asia. Unless America and Britain were willing to countenance some large part of this result, unambiguous defeat of Japan was necessary. Fleming also goes into detail concerning FDR's and the other prominent New Dealers' naiveté concerning the true nature of communism, Stalin, and the Soviet Union. Roosevelt seemingly didn't know what to do with information contrary to his dangerous preconceptions. FDR also supported repeated purges of realists from the State Department, to the point where at Yalta, the deathly ill, by then incompetent President was accompanied by Alger Hiss, later confirmed to have been a Soviet agent.
I was stimulated by this book and could easily raise a dozen more issues just for a review. I highly recommend it.
Rating:
Summary: ADDITIONAL CONFIRMED COMMUNIST LINKS TO FDR
Review: Ahhhhh...RED baiting......well no, actually as we explore the FDR myth we see why "OLD JOE"......McCarthy that is, was correct in almost every accusation he made addressing the infiltration of our government in the 1940's-1050's by Kremlin - controlled agents. Extreme leftists today are the only folks that still cling to the myths so effectively inserted in their most receptive psyches. The most widely regurgitated myth is that Communism in the US was a ground swell emanating from an oppressed working class. In July 1995 the Intelligence Community ended a 50-year silence regarding one of cryptology's most splendid successes - the VENONA Project. VENONA was the codename used for the U.S. Signals Intelligence effort to collect and decrypt the text of Soviet KGB and GRU messages from the 1940's. These messages provided extraordinary insight into Soviet attempts to infiltrate the highest levels of the United States Government. Fleming (well substantiated by the way) indicates that the VENONA effort has confirmed (at the outset) that over 300 agents at the highest levels of FDRs organization were not just "card carrying" Commies, but under the DIRECT control of "OLD JOE" Stalin and his thugs. Essentially, with FDR's knowledge, extreme leftists were shoveling our secrets to the Commies as he (FDR) ignored the confirmed intelligence information. Why, oh why, would FDR refuse to acknowledge confirmed facts from his own sources (well, possibly it is also why certain media leftists want to go to France or walk out on academy award ceremonies - just cannot face the facts- one being that they were duped by "OLD JOE"...and I do not mean McCarthy). It can be inferred that because of the lack of "wanting to know", FDR caused the protracted cold war (if the Commies had not been passed the secrets to the A-Bomb .....guess what, the Cold War most likely would not have happened, certainly not for as long and not in a way that placed the existence of humanity on this fair planet in massive jeopardy). Atomic weapons fueled the Cold War and the Cold War was the engine that fueled the Korean conflict ,Viet Nam, and the waste of trillions of dollars of our precious treasure (not to mention human life). No doubt except for the threat of intervention by the USSR (hey folks they really, really did steal the bomb) and its rather unstable military, the US would have mopped up Korea in short order and Viet Nam overnight. FDR and his followers must bare the blame for all these issues to a great extent. Fleming adds to the massive volume of information yet to be objectively presented in the future addressing our leaders behavior and "real politics". It takes decades to really evaluate historical information, but with modern information technology, today we will really have a nice revisit for sure. Good Job Mr. Fleming.
|
