The History Book Club discussion

Hello Everyone,

For the week of August 19, 2013 - August 25, 2013, we are reading Chapter THIRTEEN and FOURTEEN, (p. 266 - 295) of Roosevelt's Centurions: FDR & the Commanders He Led to Victory in World War II.

This week's reading assignment is:

Week Twelve - August 19th - August 25th -> Chapter THIRTEEN and FOURTEEN, p. 266 - 295 - THIRTEEN - Unconditional Surrender and FOURTEEN - From Pacific Islands to Desert Sands

We will open up a thread for each week's reading. Please make sure to post in the particular thread dedicated to those specific chapters and page numbers to avoid spoilers. We will also open up supplemental threads as we did for other spotlighted books.

This book is being kicked off on May 28th (the day the book is released officially). We look forward to your participation. Amazon, Barnes and Noble, Borders and other noted on line booksellers do have copies of the book and shipment can be expedited. The book can also be obtained easily at your local library, or on your Kindle. Make sure to pre-order now if you haven't already. This weekly thread will be opened up on August 19th. We offer a special thank you to Random House for their generosity.

There is no rush and we are thrilled to have you join us. It is never too late to get started and/or to post.

Alisa will be leading this discussion.

Welcome,

~ Alisa


TO ALWAYS SEE ALL WEEKS' THREADS SELECT VIEW ALL

by Joseph E. Persico

REMEMBER NO SPOILERS ON THE WEEKLY NON SPOILER THREADS - ON EACH WEEKLY NON SPOILER THREAD - WE ONLY DISCUSS THE PAGES ASSIGNED OR THE PAGES WHICH WERE COVERED IN PREVIOUS WEEKS. IF YOU GO AHEAD OR WANT TO ENGAGE IN MORE EXPANSIVE DISCUSSION - POST THOSE COMMENTS IN ONE OF THE SPOILER THREADS. THESE CHAPTERS HAVE A LOT OF INFORMATION SO WHEN IN DOUBT CHECK WITH THE CHAPTER OVERVIEW AND SUMMARY TO RECALL WHETHER YOUR COMMENTS ARE ASSIGNMENT SPECIFIC. EXAMPLES OF SPOILER THREADS ARE THE GLOSSARY, THE BIBLIOGRAPHY, THE INTRODUCTION AND THE BOOK AS A WHOLE THREADS.

Notes:

It is always a tremendous help when you quote specifically from the book itself and reference the chapter and page numbers when responding. The text itself helps folks know what you are referencing and makes things clear.

Citations:

If an author or book is mentioned other than the book and author being discussed, citations must be included according to our guidelines. Also, when citing other sources, please provide credit where credit is due and/or the link. There is no need to re-cite the author and the book we are discussing however.

If you need help - here is a thread called the Mechanics of the Board which will show you how:

http://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/2...

Glossary

Remember there is a glossary thread where ancillary information is placed by the moderator. This is also a thread where additional information can be placed by the group members regarding the subject matter being discussed.

(Part One) http://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/8...
(Part Two) http://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/1...

Bibliography

There is a Bibliography where books cited in the text are posted with proper citations and reviews. We also post the books that the author used in her research or in her notes. Please also feel free to add to the Bibliography thread any related books, etc with proper citations. No self promotion, please.

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

Q&A with Joseph

Please as you are reading post questions to the author's Q&A thread because Joseph Persico will be looking in periodically and will be posting answers to your questions and will be available for a chat. We are very fortunate that he is making time to spend with us.

http://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/8...

by Joseph E. Persico

Chapter Overview and Summaries

Chapter 13 – Unconditional Surrender, p 266 -271

FDR visits a battlefield cemetery and lays a wreath for both the slain US and opposing French forces. A press conference is held at the end of the Casablanca conference in which FDR states “the elimination of German, Japanese, and Italian war power means unconditional surrender by Germany, Italy, and Japan.” (p. 267) Evidence suggests the topic had been discussed previously by the president and prime minister. FDR believed it was the best way to prevent Russia from negotiating separately with German and to defeat Germany and the enemy forces. FDR’s view was not shared universally, although Churchill appeared to support it publicly. Churchill & FDR make a trek to Marrakech after the conference. The day after the conference, Germany surrendered troops to Russia at Stalingrad.

Chapter 14 – From Pacific Islands to Desert Sands, p. 272 – 295

FDR pushed for progress in the Pacific, and fighting at Guadalcanal was not going well. FDR learns of casualties in raw terms, including the five Sullivan brothers who lost their lives together when the USS Juneau sank. The battle at Guadalcanal was intense with heavy losses and progress to push back the Japanese steady buy slow. FDR suggests a leap from strategy skip some island to advance more rapidly toward Japan.

King was nearing mandatory retirement age in 1942 and FDR renewed King’s appointment after learning of it.

MacArthur viewed Port Moresby on New Guinea a desirable and strategic post for stopping the Japanese and retaking the Philippines. Hap Arnold visits MacArthur who complains about the lack of supplies. The conditions on New Guinea were brutal and the battle lasted until ’44 yet victory supported MacArthur’s strategy over island leapfrogging.

Spring 1943 code breakers in Pearl Harbor uncover travel plans of Isoroku Yamamato, Japan’s top military strategist. Under FDR’s orders, his plane is downed, killing the admiral and dealing a heavy strategic blow to the enemy. By August ’42, the Japanese are ousted from the Aleutians, the last US soil they occupy.

Marshall tried unsuccessfully to get FDR to pursue the cross channel invasion after North Africa. Sicily would be next. The US and Britain had Germany in their cross hairs in North Africa but Hitler was determined to fight on. Surrender by American troops to the Germans in Tunisia resulted in Ike relieving a Major General in North Africa of his command, and he replaces him with Patton. On a trip to Washington, Ike’s aide Harry Butcher meets with FDR. Butcher is surprised by FDR’s detailed knowledge of the North Africa campaign.

Ike deputizes Omar Bradley to Patton and when Patton is sent to Sicily Bradley takes over in North Africa. The two men have very different styles. In May ’43 the Axis troops in North Africa surrender. The debate over the wisdom of the North African strategy remains an open matter. One thing is clear; it delayed the European invasion plan.

Churchill makes his third trip to Washington to convince FDR of the Sicily and Italy invasion. He believed ending the European battle as far east as possible would keep the Russians at bay and prevent them from forging success on the European mainland. He pressed the point with his usual tenacity, including another address to Congress. FDR was still firm on his position and extracts an agreement in compromise that a cross channel invasion would occur no later than 1944. Ike was instructed to figure out how to take Italy. British General Morgan was to plan Overlord. Churchill takes Marshall on a trip to meet with Eisenhower in the hopes of convincing Marshal that Italy was the right plan.

China was struggling amid rampant military corruption and abuse. Stilwell was stymied and had little influence with the Generalissimo. FDR called in General Chennault, a nemesis of Stillwell’s, to strategize. Stillwell returns to China to deal with the Chinese.

In April ’43 a mass grave is discovered in the Katyn Forest in Russia containing remains of some 3,000 Polish officers. Despite an investigation led by the Russians and attended by a few Americans, the Russians are exonerated. There was clear evidence however that the executions were carried out by the Russians. Churchill and FDR bury the story to appease Stalin and keep Russian on their side. The true and extensive nature of the atrocity would not be recognized by Russia for another 50 years.

When FDR visits the troops he gets a very enthusiastic reception. It must boost morale for troops to get a visit from the Commander in Chief but FDR seems to be received with great fanfare and truly enjoyed being among the soldiers. What do you think of his battlefront visit?

While making the trip to Casablanca was an adventure for him, I think his dinner with the troops truly innervated him. When you remember that he was a person with multiple physical challenges, and you realize that he was the first President to fly while in office, (through an active war zone), that the trip took days, that this was a US Presidents first trip to Africa, I think you realize that he was showing the troops, the people at home, and the Axis powers, what fearlessness really means. What a remarkable achievement.

With regard to the Unconditional Surrender statement, I believe Persico made it clear that FDR learned from Woodrow Wilson's mistake of a negotiated peace. As he said on page 268, that 'peace' left 'the virus of German militarism intact'. Also importantly, from Roosevelt's viewpoint, it reassured Stalin. I don't think using that phrase was a difficult decision for him, although others disagreed, and Churchill in particular back pedaled.

G wrote: "With regard to the Unconditional Surrender statement, I believe Persico made it clear that FDR learned from Woodrow Wilson's mistake of a negotiated peace. As he said on page 268, that 'peace' left..."

It may have appeared spontaneous to everyone else except FDR, who had thought about it as you point out. The WWI negotiated peace was tenous, I think FDR saw this and did not want history to repeat itself on his watch. It must have been a bold statement to make at the times, essentially saying 'this is how this war will end.'

G wrote: "While making the trip to Casablanca was an adventure for him, I think his dinner with the troops truly innervated him. When you remember that he was a person with multiple physical challenges, and ..."

It was brave of him. You think about the lack of personal protection in place for him. I thought the welcome he received from the troops was great. I can imagine he used this as a way to show people back home how much he invested and cared for the soldiers.

I think FDR learned a lot of what not to do about ending a war during Wilson's presidency. He also understood the U.S. Civil War, too.

Wilson should be cited:

Woodrow Wilson

G wrote: "With regard to the Unconditional Surrender statement, I believe Persico made it clear that FDR learned from Woodrow Wilson's mistake of a negotiated peace. As he said on page 268, that 'peace' left..."

Hi G - just a friendly reminder that Churchill and Wilson were authors and therefore should be cited.

Woodrow Wilson

Winston Churchill

It is hard to sometimes remember when the conversation is flowing. But thank you in advance.

Of course. I was thinking of them as politicians, not authors, but clearly they are both. Especially Churchill! Thanks, Bentley. Friendly reminders are good.

Winston Churchill

Thank you G for your cooperation - you will note now that on the right hand side of the thread those folks are now listed for easy access to their links on goodreads and other topics shows where else these two authors or books are being discussed or mentioned.

Ah yes- thanks. I see the purpose now. Am I right in assuming I don't need to cite more than once in a thread?

I just don't understand Churchill's reluctance with regard to a cross channel invasion (p288 - 'As for the cross-channel operation, Churchill still dragged his feet...').

Was he more prescient than we gave him credit for? Was he really that concerned about the post war threat from Stalin, or was it still only all about the 'Empire'?

Because of the portrait painted by Persico, I am beginning to see Churchill as Victoria's last Field Marshall.

Winston Churchill

Actually you do have to cite again - but just do an edit of your previous post - copy the html and just paste it again - if you want to talk about Churchill extensively - I just do a copy and paste of the html and put it in Notes and then I have it.

Otherwise your post is not cross populated at all and is not searchable either for mention of the author or in this case also a famous personage. It takes a second.

But you do NOT have to cite FDR, the book Roosevelt's Centurions or the author Joseph Persico.

Thank you Bentley for the reminder.

G, you raise a good question about Churchill's motivation. I'm not clear either on why he persisted. It seems he fancied himself a military strategist, but I also wonder if he was concerned where a cross channel invasion would position Britain if it failed.

Victoria's last Field Marshall, that made me laugh. :-)
Winston Churchill

G wrote: "I just don't understand Churchill's reluctance with regard to a cross channel invasion (p288 - 'As for the cross-channel operation, Churchill still dragged his feet...').

Was he more prescient th..."

Great question, G and I think it may have been a combination of things which caused Churchill to be overly cautious about the cross channel invasion. He was no doubt an Imperialist and the Empire was certainly a top priority. I think he realized that this war would spell the decline of Britain's position in world power with the rise of Russia. It was inevitable that Russia would have a major role in the eventual dissolution of Nazi Germany, thus becoming a "player" and could (and would) spell doom for the Empire.

As an aside,I have also wondered if the launching of the operation from Britain worried the PM about the physical damage that could be done to the island or an attempted last minute surprise suicide invasion by the Germans. Sounds far-fetched I know but he had to think of every contingency and the Nazi military (with a few exceptions) knew that the war was lost so why not? Just one of those "what ifs".

Winston Churchill

I am appalled by the Smolensk/Katyn massacre and the fact that the US turned their (our) back on the Russian action and lies. With all my reading on WWII, I only have a faint memory of ever hearing about this. Even though in the ultimate body count this is a small number, I am disgusted. Why didn't FDR recognize at this point that Stalin was equally as bad morally as Hitler?

G - I feel the same thing when I read of how the US really left the Philippines high and dry too and how they were treated - and it has to go through your mind sometimes that with allies like us - who needs enemies. I think the US wants what it wants when it wants it and wants everybody to do its bidding but when push comes to shove sometimes - you have to wonder. I do think that the founding fathers had it right - do not get involved with foreign entanglements - yet when your involved in the brouhaha yourself - you should know the difference between right and wrong. Don't you think in a way although not to the extent - that the US is not calling the coup - a coup in Egypt because of what they are considering "its interests". Turning a blind eye - I think - hurts "its interests" in the long run.

Also, there has been much written about the connection with the Russians by some of FDR's closest confidantes - true or not true - FDR obviously was being peddled some other kinds of information which he chose to believe or accept.

G wrote: "I am appalled by the Smolensk/Katyn massacre and the fact that the US turned their (our) back on the Russian action and lies. With all my reading on WWII, I only have a faint memory of ever hearing..."

Horrible. Were they so desperate to appease Stalin that they needed to turn a blind eye to this? I am still trying to wrap my mind around this. Perhaps there were so many fronts to fight that charging the Russian ally with atrocities would have to wait. Ugh.

Alisa wrote: " Were they so desperate to appease Stalin that they needed to turn a blind eye to this?"

Short answer? Yes.

Longer answer: Stalin was a monster. So was Hitler. But Stalin was our ally.

Even longer answer: I think that the western allies could have gotten away with confronting Stalin; it might have made Stalin want to get out of the war, but Hitler wouldn't have let him. Hitler wanted to kill or expel the Slav population, use them as slaves, etc. in order to give his Aryans more "lebensraum". But I don't think the allies knew that. Perhaps they should have, but it is hard to know how to deal with a psychopath.

Bentley wrote: "G - I feel the same thing when I read of how the US really left the Philippines high and dry too and how they were treated - and it has to go through your mind sometimes that with allies like us - ..."

Re: Egypt, absolutely. I guess it depends on what the Ally has done for us, lately, as to whether we censure them or not. Given what is going on now, I am not too impressed with my country. The episode in Poland just shows me this acceptance of morally questionable behavior on the part of our 'Allies' has been going on for a while.

Peter wrote: "Alisa wrote: " Were they so desperate to appease Stalin that they needed to turn a blind eye to this?"

Short answer? Yes.

Longer answer: Stalin was a monster. So was Hitler. But Stalin was our a..."

Based on the info so far in this book, I really believe England and the US knew what Stalin was up to, and psychopath or not, they could have tried to reign the guy in. Really disillusioning for me.

Peter and G, you both raise good points. It is sickening to see this sort of thing happen, and Peter you are right - how do you deal with the devil so unpredictable but still an ally. No easy answers. It is dissolusioning, G, definitely. At some level it seems like a cycle of horror that is bound to repeat itself, or at least has not been stopped.

Alisa wrote: "Peter and G, you both raise good points. It is sickening to see this sort of thing happen, and Peter you are right - how do you deal with the devil so unpredictable but still an ally. No easy ans..."

The area between Germany and Russia (including parts of both) was a horrible place to be caught in between about 1920 and 1950.

I have not mustered up the courage to read

by Timothy Snyder but even without that book, I know enough to know it was a very bad part of the world.

Yikes, enlightening and troubling no doubt. Things you don't want to know, but history has a way of repeating itself if stories like this are not brought to light. Thanks for the addition. I added it to the glossary thread for this book discussion as well.

The code breakers are slowly but surely showing their worth. They crack more of the Japanese code, sufficient to determine the travel plans of one of Japan's top military strategists, Isoroku Yamamato. Was there hesitation on the part of FDR in issuing the order to do this? Was it the risk of signaling to the Japanese that their code had been cracked? Was there danger that if they knew we had cracked their code, perhaps they had cracked ours and would use it against us in the same way, putting some of the coveted Centurions at risk?

Alisa wrote: "The code breakers are slowly but surely showing their worth. They crack more of the Japanese code, sufficient to determine the travel plans of one of Japan's top military strategists, Isoroku Yama..."

If you want to read about code breaking in World War II (both in the Pacific and European theaters) and especially how the intercepted messages were used, I very highly recommend a novel:

by Neal Stephenson

After the success of code breaking with Midway, I think FDR slowly came around. I am sure he was worried about showing our hand with regard to intelligence, but eventually thought the psychological impact, and taking out Japan's chief strategist was worth the risk.

I was not aware of MacArthur's opinion of the Australian soldiers or their leadership, since these Anzac troops fought like they were possessed during the desert campaigns. Or was he just so upset that the European theater was getting more reinforcements/supplies than the Pacific that he took it out on the Aussies?

G wrote: "After the success of code breaking with Midway, I think FDR slowly came around. I am sure he was worried about showing our hand with regard to intelligence, but eventually thought the psychological..."

I found it curious that he consulted the clergy before making his decision. Was he strugling with the morality of this decision?

Jill wrote: "I was not aware of MacArthur's opinion of the Australian soldiers or their leadership, since these Anzac troops fought like they were possessed during the desert campaigns. Or was he just so upset ..."

With MacArthur I always feel like it is a personal leadership decision, and one that likely influenced his thinking about the Aussies. It seems like he was also constantly looking for more resources and support from Washington.

History, for the most part, has treated Field Marshall Erwin Rommel very kindly and he has been praised for his battle plans and tactics, especially in the North Africa campaign. The Kasserine Pass debacle where Allied soldiers were killed and surrendered in droves (pg.280) is always mentioned in memoirs of his victories. My question is.......was it the genius of Rommel or the total inadequacy of Major General Lloyd Fredendall which caused such a major Allied loss? We know what Eisenhower thought since he replaced him with General Patton (a tricky move) but would it have made any difference at that particular battle? Was Rommel a great leader or has he been overrated?

I don't know enough about Rommel to have an opinion, but from my limited knowledge he seemed like a worthy battle strategist. The picture of Fredendall painted in the book is certainly less than flattering. The combination of a weak Major General at the helm facing a tough axis leader probably proscribed the outcome.

I'm sure you are right, Alisa. I hate to say it but I never hear of Fredendall until I read this book. I think I see why now since he appears to have not been equal to his assigned task. A tough call for Ike but one that had to be made and he took a chance with Patton who turned out to be the right leader at the right time.

Dwight D. Eisenhower

If you look at it from Ike's perspecive, I am not sure he had much choice. Heads rolled for less, so at some point someone was going to pay. The best defense against it happening again I suppose is to put in the toughest commander you can find. Patton gets that call, for sure.

Dwight D. Eisenhower

Persico says that the decision to invade North Africa as opposed to a cross channel invasion of Europe "still eludes the final judgement of history" (pg. 285) and of course, he knows of what he speaks. But I felt that it may have been the right decision.....it saved Britain's sea lanes and gave the untested American Army a "trial run". Additionally, it just doesn't seem that the huge invasion to become known as "D Day' could have been put together at this fairly early point of the war. There were many problems when it finally was launched so one can imagine what might have happened if it was attempted in 1942.....Germany was not quite finished at that point in the war and it could have turned into a disaster that changed the complexion of the war.

Jill wrote: "Persico says that the decision to invade North Africa as opposed to a cross channel invasion of Europe "still eludes the final judgement of history" (pg. 285) and of course, he knows of what he spe..."

I saw a small part of a cspan 2 interview with Rick Atkinson, and he seems to disagree with Persico and agree with you. He said (I am probably paraphrasing) war has its own momentum and a combination of factors, including diverting German resources away from the north, made North Africa and Italy reasonable war objectives. I haven't watched the whole program yet, but it's very interesting so far.

http://www.c-spanvideo.org/videoLibra...


Rick Atkinson

Thanks for that link G......it will be a good resource when we read Atkinson's books later this year. And his agreement with me validates the fact that I was actually on the right track. :0)

Rick Atkinson

Also regarding the statement, "The wisdom of...North Africa...still eludes the final judgment of history." (Page 285) sometimes decisions and actions are difficult to quantify or assess fully. In this case, the Africa theater did help to solidify the UK-US alliance, gave opportunities for our green troops to obtain needed experience and maturity, and caused the Nazis to become spread more thinly on several fronts. No doubt all of these points aided in the success of D-Day.

G, thanks for the link to the cspan segment. Interesting analysis to consider.

Lewis wrote: "Also regarding the statement, "The wisdom of...North Africa...still eludes the final judgment of history." (Page 285) sometimes decisions and actions are difficult to quantify or assess fully. In t..."
Good point. We can look back now and say that D-Day happened at the right time to be successful, and all those factors contributed at some level.

It is only rarely that a decision is clearly a mistake or a brilliancy.... What would have happened had we not gone through the southern route? Who knows? How can anyone tell?

We do know, of course, what actually happened. But, even then, it is far too easy to think that that outcome was a direct consequence of a single choice. Often in history (and especially military history) outcomes depend on a huge number of almost random chances.

So true, Peter, there are many interdependencies at play here. If one thing were to change then it impacts subsequent actions, decisions, and outcomes.

Peter wrote: "It is only rarely that a decision is clearly a mistake or a brilliancy.... What would have happened had we not gone through the southern route? Who knows? How can anyone tell?

We do know, of cour..."

It is easy to say that "this was brilliant" or this was "a mistake" with hindsight of 20/20, isn't it. Serendipity is often right for a particular operation and then historians (and amateur historians) get to look back at all sides of the issue and then make a decision, right or wrong.