The New Dealers' War: Fdr and the War Within World War Ii [Paperback]

"Meanwhile, the mixture of memory and history that constituted America's vision of World War II underwent a remarkable transformation. Forgotten were the reluctance to take up arms, the double-talk Franklin D. Roosevelt used to conceal is intention to make war on Germany -- revealed so graphically in the leak of Rainbow Five - and the provocative politics that lured Japan into the attack on Pearl Harbor. Also lost to memory was the ferocious antagonism between Roosevelt and Congress. Perhaps most forgotten were the consequences of the policy of unconditional surrender and the hateful tactics it legitimized, terror bombing of civilians and the use of the atomic bomb.
Instead, the deepening realization of Hitler's campaign of extermination against the Jews, which only a few Americans understood during the war, justified in many people's minds unconditional surrender, the ruthless air war, and even the atomic bomb. The global conflict slowly became the Good War, something that few of its participants would have called it at the time."

Does this sound familiar? And yet it has been the underpinning of every American entry into war since (and including) the American Revolution. Reading this book made me shudder as to what might have happened if, say, we were not so successful in winning this war. Suppose it had bogged down over seven to eight years? And what if FDR, in spite of his chicanery, was not as resolute in pursuing his goal? FDR's only failure in handling the war came back to haunt his successor, Truman: the underestimation of Joseph Stalin. FDR though he could win Stalin over by dint of his forceful personality, the way he had with so many others. Fleming does a great job of pointing out the ability of Harry Truman in not only bringing peace, but in keeping the balance of power. Were it not for Truman's realization of the facts after Potsdam, Stalin might well have ended up as the hands-down winner. Keeping Stalin out of Japan turned out in retrospect to be one of the crucial events of the war. Fleming does every historian and would-be historian a solid turn by taking World War II from the clouds of myth and grounding it firmly in reality.

One other note: the book's writing style is such that it is a sheer pleasure to read, which I attribute to the fact Fleming is also an accomplished novelist and thus has a way of making dry facts palatable to the mind. A must-have for anyone interested in American history.

If he was not so apparently biased against Roosevelt he'd carry more weight. He faults Roosevelt for EVERY move he makes. If FDR made a move that was ideologically based, Fleming criticizes him for not being pragmmatic, if FDR made a decision that was pragmatically based, Fleming criticizes him for not being true to his ideology. Fleming also criticizes FDR based on information that we now know but does not credit FDR for decisions that are supported by similar information.

One of Fleming's premises seems to be that we should NOT have fought WWII and, while it is good to re-examine our accepted beliefs, the Nazis WERE bad and had world domination aims, the Japanese WERE expansionists, had brutalized their captives and the rape of Nanking was typical of their subjugation of the countries that they conquered. Germany was technologically superior to Japan and if we'd pursued a Japan first policy Germany's technology might have triumphed.

While I do not believe that Roosevelt was pro-Communist I do believe that Fleming correctly portrays Roosevelt's self-delusion about Soviet Russia's aims and its totalitarian methods which we all know were equally as bad as the Nazis. However, FDR was trying to get Stalin to commit to fighting Japan so that the U.S wouldn't have to conduct an invasion against the entire Japanese army. No one knew if the A bomb would be successful. It is also clear that Roosevelt had no clear goals for post-war Europe. This may be attributable to his failing health. If FDR's health was truly as bad as Fleming portrays it (another of his major criticisms of FDR), FDR is to be condemned for his egotism in not stepping down, but almost every politician is an egotist and believes he knows best and will act best.

How reputable the author is as an historian is uncertain. He has certainly written many historical books but without going to and reading his citations it is impossible to know how accurate he is.

The book is certainly thought provoking and that says a lot.

Fleming again reveals the New Deal as a massive failure: only WW II cured the Depression. We're left wondering if that was one reason FDR pushed so hard for war. As late as 1937-38, during his 2nd term, his ideological insistence on government control of business led to a severe recession while other nations outstripped the US, including Britain, Germany, Japan, Sweden, and Chile.

As for the German resistance, some doubters are right: we'll never know whether it could have effected a change. But FDR covered up the very existence of the Front of Decent People and refused to respond to its approaches. On the other hand, his lingering hostility to Poland and other Eastern European nations defies logical and ethical explanation. Ever the politician, he kept the Soviets' 1939 Katyn Forest massacre from the public (sending a knowledgable intelligence officer to Samoa), lest he alienate a powerful US voting block.

The hypocrisy of the "unconditional surrender" policy is hardly new, but Fleming dissects it with meticulous evidence. Despite statements to the contrary, Italy and Japan were in fact allowed to surrender conditionally but Germans felt they had no option but to continue fighting. One must wonder why the exception. Was it because neither Italy nor Japan posed a threat to the Soviet Union? FDR's fawning over Stalin and Stalinism prompts such speculation.

There is also the matter of Roosevelt's egomaniacal assurrance that only he could lead the world's greatest military and industrial power. (Wendell Willkie, the 1940 Republican candidate, like many GOP pols, self-destructed, even indicating a willingness to run as FDR's VP!) In order to get elected to his 3rd and 4th terms, FDR had to lie to the public about his health, with connivance of his navy doctors.

Finally, Fleming notes that immediately after delivering his 1945 inaugural (the shortest on record) FDR did two things: updated his will and planned his funeral. Those were not the actions of a forward-looking leader, and Fleming recognizes that fact.