Å·±¦ÓéÀÖ

Hello Everyone,

For the week of October 26th through November 1st, we are reading approximately the next 40 pages of No Ordinary Time by Doris Kearns Goodwin.

The second week's assignment is:

October 26 � November 1~~ Chapter 2 � 3 (40 - 80)
Chapter Two � “A Few Nice Boys with BB Guns� � page 40
Chapter Three � “Back to the Hudson� � page 61

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 thread should only deal with these chapters and pages. No spoilers, please.

Discussion on these sections will begin on October 26th..

Welcome,

Bentley

TO SEE ALL PREVIOUS WEEKS' THREADS SELECT VIEW ALL








Doris Kearns Goodwin

Please make sure that you post in the appropriate week's thread. These are non spoiler threads.

I thought I would kick off the discussion of these two chapters while they are still fresh in my mind. I'm enjoying the book so much I'm afraid I'll get so far into it that I will lose the thread, so to speak.

It's difficult for people who were not there to realize that the Great Depression did not end when FDR begat the "New Deal". It did not end until the U.S. got heavily into war production, 1940 and beyond. One might argue that WW II saved the American economy so we have Hitler and others like him to thank for the prosperity we enjoyed for so many years: not an easily accessible idea.

In spite of all that FDR and the Democrats did to bring the country out of the depression, many, if not most, businessmen hated the "New Deal" and by extension, FDR and Eleanor. Not unlike those who are criticising the current administration as it struggles to lift us out of what could have been another "Great Depression".

By setting up the NDAC and appointing business people to it, FDR was able to ease the tension between business and government and bring many of the foes of his policies into the interventionist camp.

It is interesting to me that those who supported FDR on International issues, Southern Dems and Republicans opposed his domestic agenda. I see a similar line-up today in Congress.

I also see FDR's calling for 50,000 planes in two years as similar to JFK's challenge to put a man on the moon in 10 years. FDR was nothing if not an optimist who really believed that people could do anything if they really wanted to. Perhaps this was a result of his mental victory over his crippling polio.

Lindbergh's behavior prior to the U.S. entering the war has puzzled many people. Personally I think two factors were responsible. One, he was charmed and impressed by Hitler and what he had done in Germany and feared that the U.S. could never catch up and two, he was an anti-semite.

The 1939 War games in Louisiana were a joke. Some of the newsreels from the time are hilarious as they show soldiers operating with wooden carved machine guns and other substitutes. The tanks are WW I vintage and many of the planes are bi-planes. This is to say nothing of 35,000 horses grazing before being asked to charge the tanks.

FDR's Fireside Chat of May, 1940 had a tremendous impact on people's attitudes. It is impossible to overestimate how influential these fireside chats were - the aristocrat from N.Y. chatting with the hoi polloi throughout the country.

It was at this time the cost-plus contract idea was implemented. In spite of its abuses over the years the concept enabled industry to transition to war-time production using government funds for the investments needed for plants and equipment.

The "Military-Industrial" complex that Eisenhower warned us of is still with us. We've gone from the wretched preparedness of the late 30's to building weapons for which there is no need. Was it worth it?

I was not aware until now of howw opposed the military was to supplying G.B. instead of spending the money at home. I had never read of the deal sending 12 B-17s to G.B., 1/4 of our B-17 inventory.

It's fascinating to me that as France fell and the news from GB got grimmer and grimmer the U.S. electorate became more and more interventionist. Maybe it was the thought that it's better to keep GB in the war than to try and protect our own shores.

Sara's influence on FDR was much stronger than I ever realized. Her move to Boston must have sent FDR up a tree and as Goodwin postulates taught him to be evasive so he could have a life. Reminds me of Douglas MacArthur's mother moving to West Point when Douglas entered the Military Academy.

On the other hand, her unstinting support and love certainly contributed to FDR's self-confidence. I guess a mother's love can either strengthen or weaken a person. In this case, it had a salutary affect, though it didn't do much for his relationship with Eleanor.

I had no idea Eleanor actually wrote her weekly column, in such a way that people could surmise she was against the draft. Not true, of course, she wanted to expand it to include other types of service. It is instructive, I think, that when FDR dropped her a note she stopped questioning the draft and came out whole-heartedly in favor of it.

Dropped her a note? Didn't these two talk to one another?

Ed, it is fine that you opened up the discussion here. Just make sure to stay with the appropriate non spoiler thread. It is a good thing to have a book that has captured everyone's interest.

I wonder too what was the true nature of their relationship over time. It is almost as if they went back to being cousins who had great fondness for each other but no spousal love or intimacy...respectful but distant.

I think that it is very difficult to have a third person in a relationship whether it be a mother, a girlfriend, a mistress or whatever this third wheel happens to be.

No one really knows what trouble Sara actually caused in the marriage of her son; yet oddly enough she saved the outward appearance of the marriage with her standing in the way of his divorce.

Here is another question from the reading guide:

Franklin and Eleanor had a very unconventional marriage, even by today's standards. What bound them? What kept them from living more completely as man and wife? What helped to make them such an extraordinary team? How did the combination of their characters serve to create such a remarkable and successful partnership?

At the end of the last reading segment, Eleanor Roosevelt had fears and different concerns about the war than FDR.

"Her deepest fear, Lash recorded in his diary was that nothing would come out of this war different from the last war, that history would repeat itself. And because of this sinking feeling, she could not put her heart into the war."

Eleanor also stressed the importance of renewing democracy at home in order to make the fight for democracy abroad more worthwhile. Her themes according to Kearns were: 1) How to preserve the freedoms of democracy in the world; and 2) How really to make democracy work at home and prove it is worth preserving. Kearns indicated that these are the questions the youth must face today and also the older generation.

In what ways are the youth and the older generation facing these questions today? Does the generational gap force these generations to face these questions the same or differently? Eleanor Roosevelt is still very much revered today, more so than many other former First Ladies...why do you think this is so?

Page 30

The reading assignment for this week's reading is from pages 40 - 80. To help transition last week's discussion into this week's; I thought that I would highlight the different thought processes at work within Eleanor and the president; large concerns for both; but very different views. Do you think these different views of the world complemented each other or do you think these are some of the differences that separated these two individuals?

Kearns stated that Eleanor's views were not the views on FDR's mind. His concerns were much more immediate: 1) How to get a new and expanded military budget through the Congress; 2) How to provide aid to the Allies as quickly as possible; 3) How to stock up on strategic materials; (in other words, how to start the complex process of mobilizing for war).

Do you think that the fact that Eleanor and Franklin thought so differently at this time gender-specific, personality-specific or role-specific? To me, it seemed that their paths were already markedly different as was their views towards each other.

Do you think that one (Eleanor) wanted to avoid the war at all costs if possible; while the other (FDR) already saw the war as a "fait accompli"?

Again this is a transitional question to move discussion on to this thread for the discussion of pages 40 - 80.

First off, I just want to say that I really enjoyed these next two chapters. Doris Kearns Goodwin is such a gifted story teller. I just finished reading this week's chapters and it went so smoothly.

About your question, Bentley... What struck me the most about FDR during these two chapters was his determination to adhere so firmly to his decision to supply Britain with arms... going against everyone in his cabinet, Eleanor, and all others in-the-know as well. He didn't flinch one bit. Roosevelt and Churchill must have had some interesting conversations. I wonder if Churchill could have convinced some of the ney-sayers as well, say maybe Marshall?

As far as Eleanor is concerned, I am getting the impression that FDR was pretty much alone in his fight at home to first build up for the war, and then to ship what little arms we had to help Britain fight. He had to change the public's viewpoint about isolationism before he could get started! It really didn't matter if his Sec of War disagreed with him, or his wife, he needed to work with whoever was best able to get the job done, and fast. Did Eleanor's opinion really matter that much when he was in the thick of all this responsibility? The fate of the whole world was at stake. I don't think FDR cared much about what other people thought unless they were in the thickets with him, fighting alongside and were able to help get arms overseas.

FDR gave Eleanor her role - as his domestic partner in the US which was more of a partnership than at home. He would tell her to attend various events, talk to certain people, and report back to him what she had learned. This knowledge ranged from what people were saying about the US and what was going on to Hollywood gossip a la Paulette Goddard. The European theatre of WWII was opening up fast, and FDR had to concentrate on this. Eleanor helped him by going out where/when he couldn't, and keep him informed and up to date on domestic issues. You can say it was gender specific also, where Eleanor concentrated on 'home' and FDR focused on away-from-home issues.
I believe FDR saw the war as unavoidable, and it would be only a matter of time before the US got directly involved. His speech asking for additional funds to stock up and build up defense was mobilizing for war. I think Eleanor knew this, too, but let his domestic assignments to her enable her to avoid thinking about this unpleasant time to come.

Joe wrote: "First off, I just want to say that I really enjoyed these next two chapters. Doris Kearns Goodwin is such a gifted story teller. I just finished reading this week's chapters and it went so smoothly..."

You are right Joe...FDR was certainly a man of his convinctions and did not flinch one bit in helping Great Britain. Thank goodness he did that; because the end result might not have been in anybody's favor and the war could have ended differently. Europe was suffering a great deal.

I also see your point that FDR was willing to go it alone if need be. And he did. The responsibility and the blame would fall on his shoulders in any case no matter how good or bad things went or what was the outcome of his decisions. So he probably felt that he alone had to do what he thought was right and was needed.

Virginia wrote: "FDR gave Eleanor her role - as his domestic partner in the US which was more of a partnership than at home. He would tell her to attend various events, talk to certain people, and report back to h..."

That is interesting Virginia..I had never seen it that way...sort of the woman's place was in the home (that was the common theme in those days)...of course, the fact that Eleanor traveled so much during his presidency was not readily accepted at that time either; especially for women to have such a visible role in diplomacy and other domestic policy areas. Eleanor really broke new ground.

Virginia wrote: "FDR gave Eleanor her role - as his domestic partner in the US which was more of a partnership than at home. He would tell her to attend various events, talk to certain people, and report back to h..."

This is a pivotal section, the one in which FDR questions Eleanor on what she saw and heard, details, details and more details. He was training her to go beyond obvious or surface appearances and read the mood of the country on both domestic and foreign affairs. Yes, he had a fixed agenda but he was no jerk and knew the populace would ditch him if he veered too far from public opinion. A presidential wife or First Lady was the best non-partisan way to get this information. Honestly, what could Eleanor do about foreign policy - not much, and they were both savvy enough to know that a contented domestic population will give ear to something challenging abroad, given there is no disturbance of their own agenda. It will be interesting to see Eleanor's role later on when more emphasis turns to foreign affairs. (no spoiler :) )

Viviane wrote: "Virginia wrote: "FDR gave Eleanor her role - as his domestic partner in the US which was more of a partnership than at home. He would tell her to attend various events, talk to certain people, and..."

Excellent observation Viviane and I loved your final sentence teaser!

One of the biggest things I got from these chapters is how unique FDR was. Just thinking that most Interventionists were anti-New Deal and vice versa really illuminates how rare it was for FDR to be both. It seems FDR knew what he wanted, what he thought needed to happen, and moved forward. He knew how to work people, when to encourage cooperation and when to bully and when to just say, "You're wrong" and move on without them.

I too am amazed to realize how opposed the military leaders were to sending supplies to Britain. I can certainly see their point. If I were a fly on the wall at the time, I don't know if I would have agreed with them or Roosevelt. But with hindsight... How did Roosevelt know? It seems certain that Britain would have fallen, however slowly and painfully. Could the USA have then won alone? I guess that is one of the marks of a good leader in the eyes of history--someone who just somehow "knows" what needs to be done and figures a way to do it.

The brief pictures of the Miracle of Dunkirk and of Hitler's perspective on Paris were illuminating for me. And really set up a stark contrast with events in America.

Joe wrote: "First off, I just want to say that I really enjoyed these next two chapters. Doris Kearns Goodwin is such a gifted story teller. I just finished reading this week's chapters and it went so smoothly..."

Good points, Joe. I believe that FDR's willingness to help out GB during WWII is the primarly reason why that nation continues to support the US today. Invading Iraq is a recent example of providing such support.

Bentley wrote: "Virginia wrote: "FDR gave Eleanor her role - as his domestic partner in the US which was more of a partnership than at home. He would tell her to attend various events, talk to certain people, and..."

Bentley, I agree that Eleanor was a pioneer for women. Most first ladies had spent their time running the White House and entertaining guests, but then Sara, and even Missy, handled most of those tasks, which freed Eleanor up to pursue other activities. We'll gain more insight into Eleanor and how she became started in her own efforts to make changes in the country later in the book. I now better understand her legacy.

In these book chapters, we start to see the challenges that FDR faces in getting Congress and the people on board with this plan. Getting legislation passed is a slow and cumbersome process so FDR will need to find other ways to get his program to help Britain moving. Some of the approaches that FDR took paved the way for other Presidents to use a similar approach, most recently, George Bush.

I'm really enjoying this read.

Ed wrote: "It's difficult for people who were not there to realize that the Great Depression did not end when FDR begat the "New Deal". It did not end until the U.S. got heavily into war production, 1940 and beyond. One might argue that WW II saved the American economy so we have Hitler and others like him to thank for the prosperity we enjoyed for so many years: not an easily accessible idea."

Comments, agree, disagree, anyone?

Ed wrote: "I also see FDR's calling for 50,000 planes in two years as similar to JFK's challenge to put a man on the moon in 10 years. FDR was nothing if not an optimist who really believed that people could do anything if they really wanted to. Perhaps this was a result of his mental victory over his crippling polio.
"

Does anyone else see the similarity. Yes? No?

Ed wrote: "The "Military-Industrial" complex that Eisenhower warned us of is still with us. We've gone from the wretched preparedness of the late 30's to building weapons for which there is no need. Was it worth it?"

Agree? Disagree?

Ed wrote: "Ed wrote: "It's difficult for people who were not there to realize that the Great Depression did not end when FDR begat the "New Deal". It did not end until the U.S. got heavily into war production..."

A problem that I would have in agreeing with the statement in message 18 is that I personally cannot imagine a war any more horrible than World War II (unless we are talking about World War I). Additionally, there is no person more repulsive than Hitler to a large segment of the population. So many innocent people were even exterminated. Though economically there may have been an upswing with the war effort; many are reluctant to say that this war or even any war is a blessing in disguise. So I guess I have to disagree. In World War I alone; over 15 million people were killed. How can anything be worth that price? Then along came World War II and over 60 million additional people were killed. I would give back every economic improvement realized by the war to bring those killed so young back to life.

Ed wrote: "Ed wrote: "I also see FDR's calling for 50,000 planes in two years as similar to JFK's challenge to put a man on the moon in 10 years. FDR was nothing if not an optimist who really believed that pe..."

This I could agree with; he was not personally defeated by a crippling illness and he believed in the spirit of man to overcome all obstacles.

Ed wrote: "Ed wrote: "The "Military-Industrial" complex that Eisenhower warned us of is still with us. We've gone from the wretched preparedness of the late 30's to building weapons for which there is no need..."

I am one who believes that Eisenhower was right and we have the problem with us today. Unfortunately, we have to be prepared for those who still believe that they can rule the world, defeat the infidels or even be prepared for terrorist activities which still can originate from countries which are ruled by either tyrants or unstable individuals and regimes. We do not live in a perfect world; but the military complex that Ike talked so much about is still very much with us today. I am not sure I could say that I agree or disagree; or even think it was worth it. In retrospect, I am also very upset to think that we were forced to bomb Japan and kill so many civilians; but it doesn't change the course of events which sadly made it necessary. Upsetting as these times were for all involved; I guess we can only blame ourselves for nuclear weaponry and the bomb. I guess that what I am saying is that we still need advanced weaponry because there are still bad people out there who would prefer if we did not exist.

Sera wrote: "In these book chapters, we start to see the challenges that FDR faces in getting Congress and the people on board with this plan. Getting legislation passed is a slow and cumbersome process so FDR..."

I think that FDR was a different kind of a man. He didn't need the job; yet was perfect for it in many ways maybe even because of what he had had to endure. His paralysis could have made him more attentive to details and being able to sit more quietly than other presidents had done before him and be able to think through a problem without having to bustle here or there. He had to learn to be a patient man; especially because of his paralysis.

Sera wrote: "Bentley wrote: "Virginia wrote: "FDR gave Eleanor her role - as his domestic partner in the US which was more of a partnership than at home. He would tell her to attend various events, talk to cer..."

I agree with you Sera and I am glad that you are enjoying this book.

Elizabeth S wrote: "One of the biggest things I got from these chapters is how unique FDR was. Just thinking that most Interventionists were anti-New Deal and vice versa really illuminates how rare it was for FDR to ..."

It is good thing that FDR realized that by helping his friends and allies that he was also saving American lives in the long run; not just simply our allies. FDR planned ahead and the longer America was able to stay out of the conflict the more lives were saved in the long run and as long as we were able to help bolster the allies; we could stay on the sidelines. Additionally, if Britain and the other allies had fallen to Germany; it is highly likely that the war might have taken a regrettable turn for the worse. Being able to hit Germany from a number of fronts was key to the allies' victory.

Ed wrote: "Ed wrote: "It's difficult for people who were not there to realize that the Great Depression did not end when FDR begat the "New Deal". It did not end until the U.S. got heavily into war production..."

I guess I think of it in the "There is no great loss without some small gain" category. WWII was horrible, and no one (except Hitler?) would ask for it. But the upswing in the economy was a (comparatively) minuscule positive consequence.

My question is, if there had been no WWII to require the ward production that rejuvinated the American economy, how long do you think it would have taken The New Deal to get things back on track? Would Americans have gotten impatient and voted in someone with a Newer Deal?

Elizabeth S wrote: "Ed wrote: "Ed wrote: "It's difficult for people who were not there to realize that the Great Depression did not end when FDR begat the "New Deal". It did not end until the U.S. got heavily into war..."

A very interesting question Elizabeth...Americans have always been reluctant to swap horses in midstream (especially during a war). Being an American, I can safely say that we are not known for our patience; though this greatest generation was brave and resourceful and sacrificed a great deal for their country. They were wonderful people.

Maybe they were more loyal then and appreciated how much FDR had tried to help and console them during some very tough times.

Nowadays, the media would just malign whoever was president and basically ask "what have you done for me lately" and "how much longer is this going to take and I hope you are not insinuating that I will have to make any sacrifices." A rather bleak outlook for our future if we do not step up to the plate.

Bentley, Elizabeth,

I was not suggesting that WW I or WW II were good things or beneficial in their over-all impact. What I was thinking of might fall under the idea of unintended consequences. Our economy recovered faster than it would have otherwise and the only manufacturing capacity in the world in 1945 was in the U.S. which fueled the prosperity of the 50s and early 60s. Was it worth 60,000,000 lives? Hardly. It just was what happened as a result of the total destruction of WW II. Democracy in Germany and Japan are also the result of WW II.

The Cold war gave us many inventions that led to materials and products we depend on. Does that mean the Cold War was a good thing? No, not if you look at the gazillions of dollars we spent on destructive machines and weapons but it did generate some good outcomes.

I think it's instructive to look at history as one would experience waves in the ocean. There are waves of history, some waves are destructive, some are benign some have no effect at all. But one can't pretend the waves don't exist or wish they would behave in any way other than their nature.

I sometimes enjoy reading alternative history as it shakes up my conceptions.

Elizabeth S wrote: "My question is, if there had been no WWII to require the ward production that rejuvinated the American economy, how long do you think it would have taken The New Deal to get things back on track? Would Americans have gotten impatient and voted in someone with a Newer Deal?
"

I think eventually, the economy would have come back. There was even, in 1940, the beginning of a conflict between "guns and butter" as Goodwin points out.

People were more patient and/or trusting in those days. I'm afraid what we have now is a climate of entitlement because people believe they deserve luxuries that were unimaginable in 1940. Another unintended consequence of the incredible prosperity of the last 60 years.

Ed wrote: "Bentley, Elizabeth,

I was not suggesting that WW I or WW II were good things or beneficial in their over-all impact. What I was thinking of might fall under the idea of unintended consequences. ..."

Ed, I can understand where you are coming from and probably the words unintended consequences probably are a wee bit more sensitive. I remember teaching a course and having my neighbor across the hall (a professor herself for many years) absolutely be driven out of her classroom because we were watching some old newsclippings of that period in German history and she heard the sounds of the crowds and Hitler. Being that her family had died in the concentration camps and I guess as a very young child she had been brought to something like that herself; but had survived...whenever she even heard the sounds associated with that era...she practically went into a panic attack (completely uncontrollable response). Of course, we refrained from subjecting her to listening to these sounds again out of respect for what she had obviously been put through. I think there were a lot of folks who suffered the unthinkable during these wars and lost everyone they knew in some instances...so because of that I am sensitive to viewing much of anything positive that could come from such suffering; although as you correctly pointed out the economic upturn was an unintended consequence.

I think that wars are inevitable because of man's imperfections and nature; somebody always wants what somebody else has and/or just doesn't like them for one reason or another. So none of them are worth it to me and economic swings are going to happen on their own; but in the case of the recent world markets; they were certainly instigated by Wall Street greed and irresponsible banking practices which certainly could have been avoided.

I think we can learn a lot from history and about man's basic nature (both good and bad).

Bentley

Ed wrote: "Elizabeth S wrote: "My question is, if there had been no WWII to require the ward production that rejuvinated the American economy, how long do you think it would have taken The New Deal to get thi..."

Yes Ed..I often wonder what would happen if the incredible sacrifices that our ancestors had to endure were needed once again. And our children do sense that they are entitled to the same and in some cases more; would they be willing to make these same sacrifices if the times demanded it.

What an interesting group of posts.

The WWII generation stood up gallantly and fought, built the machines of war, and invented what was not because they were asked to. They did it because if they didn't, good would not have prevailed over evil. I read somewhere that predominately, good always prevails over evil. But in this case, evil was winning out for such a long time, and so horribly. In my opinion, it took that long for great leaders to be called into action, like the ones we are reading about right now, and put into the right circumstances to prevail. It takes great leaders to prevail over great tyranny.

I am so looking forward to reading our next book about WW1 to find out why the leaders during that war failed to see the horrors of their next generation.

Joe, so am I. How did so many who were so bright and so able see so little and understand the repercussions for the future even less.

Joe wrote: "What an interesting group of posts.

The WWII generation stood up gallantly and fought, built the machines of war, and invented what was not because they were asked to. They did it because if they ..."

For a great book that honors that amazing generation that fought in WWII, I recommend Tom Brokaw's The Greatest Generation. He follows a number of people (from various walks of life) through the war years. Really deepens ones respect and gratitude for those who sacrificed so much.



(And sorry for the misunderstanding, Joe. I didn't mean to insinuate anyone was putting a false-positive spin on WWII. I guess, like Bentley, I was just trying to be absolutely clear.)

Back to the book at hand, I have a couple of questions. At the beginning of Chapter 2, very first paragraph, it says that when FDR addressed the joint session of conference it was "the president's first appearance in the House Chamber since the war in Wstern Europe had begun." Does anyone know how often a president, or FDR specifically, usually visits/ed the House Chamber? Was it a rare event for him to go, or a rare event for him to not go.

And is it the same house chamber now that it was in the 1940s? I was in DC this summer and got to tour the capital, and I remember them talking about how the house has changed chambers at various times, but I don't remember when.

I browse alot of used bookstores... I mean alot! No other book has shown up at used bookstores in the quantities that Tom Brokaw's The Greatest Generation has, at least in the history section. I probably could pick up ten copies of it in hardcover, probably all first editions, without even trying... and cheap.

Elizabeth, there is no need to be sorry. The events surrounding WWII are so complex, and voluminous, that so much can be said and learned from it from so many.

As far as your question about the House Chamber, I do know that before Woodrow Wilson (I think I remember that right), it was rare for a president to address a joint session of congress. But it was not such a surprise this time, especially since the events in Europe were so troubling. Maybe someone else can contribute more about the history of the House Chamber... Robert Remini's book The House The History of the House of Representatives is also on my reading list.

Elizabeth, I do not know the answer to your question about the House Chamber. I guess they can schedule a joint event for both chambers when the President has some important announcement or speech like the one on healthcare. It seems to me that it is more common for small groups and members to be summoned to the White House.

I found the following:

State of the Union

"At some time during the first two months of each session, the President customarily delivers the State of the Union Address, a speech in which an assessment is made of the state of the country, and the presidents' legislative agenda is outlined. The speech is modeled on the Speech from the Throne, given by the British monarch. There is a major difference, however. The President is the principal author of his State of the Union message, while the Speech from the Throne is customarily written by the Prime Minister

The Constitution of the United States requires that the president "shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union," but does not specify whether the information should be given in a speech or a written report.

The first two presidents, George Washington and John Adams, delivered the speech in person before both houses of Congress, but that practice was discontinued under Thomas Jefferson, who deemed it too monarchical and sent written reports instead. Written reports were standard until 1913, when Woodrow Wilson reestablished the practice of personally attending to deliver the speech. Few Presidents have deviated from this custom since."

AND

Presidential addresses

"In addition to State of the Union Addresses, Presidents deliver addresses to Congress on specific subjects. The first such speech was delivered by John Adams on the subject of U.S. relations with France. The most popular subjects for such addresses are economic, military and foreign policy issues.

Some of these addresses, such as Bill Clinton's 1993 Economic Address, George W. Bush's Budget Message of 2001, and Barack Obama's joint session speech of 2009 are sometimes wrongly labeled as State of Union Addresses."

Extracts taken from the following source:

Here is another discussion question from the reading guide which I think lends itself to the conversation at hand:

It was truly amazing how America, a nation completely unprepared for war, rose up to become an unprecedented leader in war production. "The figures are all so astronomical that they cease to mean very much," historian Bruce Catton wrote. "The total is simply beyond the compass of one's understanding. Here was displayed a strength greater even than cocky Americans in the old days of unlimited self-confidence had supposed; strength to which nothing—literally nothing, in the physical sense—was any longer impossible." What does this reveal about America and the spirit of the American people?

Thanks, Bentley & Joe, for that info on the House and the presidential addresses. It helps me picture the events, and judge the significance of the events, better. I also have that history of the house book on my to-read list, it sounds interesting.

About the spirit of the American people...

I hate to say this, but I don't think it's our spirit that gives us our strength. Doesn't everyone from all nations have such spirit? Look at the Japanese during WWII, or the Vietnamese during the 60's and 70's. I think it's our vast resources that gives us the opportunity to lead and have spirit to overcome. Just having spirit isn't enough. Spirit can carry you far, but eventually overwhelming odds will catch up with you.

Where in the whole world can such a vast land, with it's populous throughout, so able to reach into their back pockets with valuable resources such as ours and dominate a cause? Maybe China can come closest... Russia is barren with cold, Africa and the Mediterranean with their deserts, and heat and the jungles of the tropics. I don't know... someone tell me I'm mistaken, but that's what I think right now.

In response to sensitivity to others...

"I remember teaching a course and having my neighbor across the hall (a professor herself for many years) absolutely be driven out of her classroom because we were watching some old newsclippings of that period in German history and she heard the sounds of the crowds and Hitler. Being that her family had died in the concentration camps and I guess as a very young child she had been brought to something like that herself; but had survived"


I will always remember being in my first WWII history course in college and my professor, Dr. Eric Roman, was describing the strength and admirable qualities of the German people (mind you - not the Nazis or Hitler, but the people themselves.) A student in the class blurted out "GO back to Germany you Nazi lover!" - we then proceeded to get Dr. Roman's personal history, a Hungarian Jew, 14 years old during the time of the war and forced to work, with the other boys from the school he went to, on German Airfields by the occupying force while his entire family was rounded up and put to death in the concentration camps, including his twin sister. Quite an enlightened man, to be able to deem the qualities of a people and not villify the entire nation. It was Stalin's ravages of Russia that would stir his heart the most.

I suppose we all have subjects that stir us, positive or negative - for me the scene from A Beautiful Mind where the main character, John Nash, undergoes electric shock therapy strikes me straight to my heart as my maternal grandmother endured multiple "treatments" while she struggled with schizophrenia.

I am curious as to what Ed means by "alternative history".

I think any discussion of history requires full exploration of the time period in which the events are occurring, that is what makes the study of any "war" so interesting, exciting and "engulfing".


Some of Eric Roman books:

Hungary and the Victor Powers 1945-1950
A Year as a Lion
The Stalin Years in Hungary
Austria-Hungary & the Successor States: A Reference Guide from the Renaissance to the Present
The best shall die : a novel.
After the trial; a novel.

Great post Alexis by the way. And some moving analogies and stories. I am wondering if you could add the book covers to the books you cited above so that folks can link to them. If you are not familiar with the instructions on how to do it; I will repost some instructions that I posted on another thread. Å·±¦ÓéÀÖ software does some great and interesting links when you add the bookcovers which are very helpful in order to read more about each entry. Thanks so much.

Please do post the instructions - also how to quote someone else's commentary as I seem to not be as "with-it" as the rest of you.

OK..here are some quick instructions I posted for Andre on the Afghanistan thread:

Have you tried the feature called add book/author. You can view it at the top of the message box when you type in a note.

When you start composing a note; you click on add box/author above the message box; you type in the name of the book and/or author you want to add to your note; next you will then see a list of books which sort of match.

You select the correct one and then you can add the book cover and the link to your post. You can also add a link to the author himself and then somebody can just click on that link and see other books by the same author or view the write-up about the book itself and/or even link to outside sources to purchase the book if they are interested (all from your one original link).

It is a very useful feature and it is fun to use.

Thank you for all of the great suggestions; I will add the above links for you.

Bentley

If you want to quote somebody else's commentary; you have to go to their specific message and hit reply right under the message you want to quote; a little bit of their commentary will appear automatically in the comment box; you just type your response and/or reply right underneath it. And then hit post.

I'm finally back after a huge round of grading. So many interesting posts. I agree with several that what strikes me about Roosevelt was his ability to look at things from more than one perspective. Most of us examine some issues closely, and then stick to "party" (or family or ethnic group or region or profession or whatever) line on at least some other things. On "The Greatest Generation," I've had the opportunity over the past few years to go through a lot of old family letters, diaries etc. from the era and what I've found most touching is that they weren't really "greater" than we or our children. They had the same fears, doubts, personal turmoils. They did have a stronger feeling, I think, that the morals and values they had been brought up with could be trusted, that truth could be arrived at, at least at some future point. The relatives whose journals and letters I've read seem to have been very little influenced by the moral uncertainty of the "lost generation" of the twenties.

Andrea,

What struck me about your post was the following sentence..."They did have a stronger feeling, I think, that the morals and values they had been brought up with could be trusted, that truth could be arrived at, at least at some future point."

I wonder if that is the difference...I do not think that the current generation really feels that way.

Also, I agree about Roosevelt being able to view things from different perspectives..not only as a privileged man who was born with a silver spoon in his mouth but one who had to overcome some debilitating obstacles and gained help from others who were less fortunate than he was. I think his physical situation changed the emotional and intellectual side of Roosevelt for the better.

Great post, Andrea.

Bentley, You can also provide a link to a book without having to access the cover. The formula is Square bracket"[" followed by the word "book:" then the title followed by another square bracket"]" very simple and efficient. The title appears in a gold tone. Here's an example: No Ordinary Times. You can do the same with authors.

Yes, you are correct Ed..it is sometimes easier the other way for folks who do not have the absolute correct title in mind. I often only know parts of the title..so usually I have to resort to the method I suggested. I have used your approach often when a) I know the correct title of the book as it is entered in goodreads, b)I only want the text and not the cover. But it is always good to have multiple ways to skin a cat. I prefer the covers when recommending the books on the threads because it is more eyecatching and cosmetically pleasing and you can line up an entire group of recommendations all at once. Thank you though Ed for bringing that approach also to everybody's attention; it is also a great one.

Bentley wrote: "I think there were a lot of folks who suffered the unthinkable during these wars and lost everyone they knew in some instances...so because of that I am sensitive to viewing much of anything positive that could come from such suffering; although as you correctly pointed out the economic upturn was an unintended consequence."

I do not want to start a new thread with these thoughts but I have a problem with allowing "sensitivity" to get in the way of bringing the truth to light. Too much of it leads to the worst examples of "Political Correctness" and contributes to covering up reality.

Your story was instructive and I support your solution but that does not mean that young people should not be exposed to the excesses of the past so they can learn from them. Perhaps a different time or venue would have allowed you to do what was necessary without upsetting your colleague.

Does being sensitive mean I can't talk about slavery in the U.S. as an economic institution that contributed to the establishment of the US as an independent nation, if I'm around blacks? Was slavery wrong? Of course it was. Unfortunately it has been a part of human history right from the beginning. Greece and Rome could not have existed without slavery. Understanding slavery's aspects is important to understanding a great deal of history.

Being sensitive to people's suffering is important. Ignoring the truth is dangerous. If I let people know what we are going to discuss and some choose to leave, that's cool. If on the other hand people use their suffering real and imagined to try and control others and what is made public, that is manipulation.

Like the recent flap about the newsreel showing the young soldier being shot in Afghanistan. His parents were understandably upset but when Robert Gates got involved it became something entirely different. We do not deserve to be protected from the decisions made that put American's in harm's way. The boy's parents have a right to never view that newsreel. But neither they nor Robert Gates have the right to keep the rest of us from seeing what's going on over there.

I rant. Forgive me. Hit a nerve I think

Elizabeth S wrote: "For a great book that honors that amazing generation that fought in WWII, I recommend Tom Brokaw's The Greatest Generation. He follows a number of people (from various walks of life) through the war years. Really deepens ones respect and gratitude for those who sacrificed so much."

Any of the Stephen E. Ambrose books on WW II also expose the incredibly self-sacrificing efforts of those who survived the depression and then fought to preserve freedom and decency.