The History Book Club discussion
PRESIDENTIAL SERIES
>
2. NO ORDINARY TIME ~ CHAPTERS 2 - 3 ( 40� 80) (10/26/09 - 11/01/09) ~ No spoilers, please
date
newest »
newest »
Joe wrote: "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 Japanes..."
Joe, I couldn't agree with you more. Not only the unlimited resources but the safety valve that the opening of the West created has given Americans the opportunity to turn that patriotic spirit into the industrial and military miracle we are reading about.
Alexis wrote: "In response to sensitivity to othersI am curious as to what Ed means by "alternative history"."
That's where an author postulates a different outcome than what actually happened. Harry Turtledove has written a number of books in which the South won the Civil War. The Man in the High Castle by Philip K. Dick postulates a scenario in which Germany and Japan jointly occupy the U.S. Fatherland by Robert Harris: http://www.goodreads.com/author/show/..., which was made into a movie, creates a world in which Germany won and has successfully covered up the holocaust.
Some of them really blow my mind.
Mod
Ed, I agree with you in part; but to tell you the truth, I could do without seeing that young man die. Sometimes it is better not to be exposed to every sordid thing that happens in the world.
If folks are so inclined they can discuss, view and handle whatever discussion they might deem interesting and reasonable. However, I am for sensitivity and civility when possible and that does not offend me. I think being exposed to all of the sordidness of the world sometimes does.
I felt for the boy's parents and I think the networks could have exercised even more restraint that they did. I think we are so bombarded with violence and so to speak real life scenarios and live coverage that we as a people are pretty much anesthetized to most suffering even the suffering that we cause.
I was happy in the instance that I described to oblige my colleague; seeing her suffering made me very uncomfortable and sad for her. There were other times and places where the same media could be viewed by others.
Since this is just conversation among group members, I know you understand; and like in all other things..there are always differences of opinion as to what is acceptable.
Mod
Good point Ed.
Mod
My husband will often avoid hard history lessons in movies, articles and books, as he feels it is overkill. But I believe otherwise, study and understand history (all o..."
Alexis I agree with your views as well. You are making judgement calls all of the time in terms of what is sensible for you and your family. Yet you want to expose them to as much as they are able so they can judge for themselves and see the realities of life without having their young minds upset. You are there to guide them and support them along the way.
I think that your stating that you made a decision not to watch the footage of war scenes does not make one less able to study and understand difficult issues and in the case of the war footage..what the grim realities of war are.
Mod
I am curious as to what Ed means by "alternative history"."
That's where an author postulates a different outcome than what actually happened. ..."
Interesting. Thank you Ed for your explanation.
Mod
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 Japanes..."
I am glad that the discussion guide question has created some lively conversation. Spirit and enthusiasm are very important and drive...but they will only take you so far..there are other things that are needed by a people to succeed; I think creativity, intelligence, able to think outside the box, the ability to see the logic flow and outcome of scenarios before they happen is very valuable and the ability to own up to mistakes and change course without loss of honor and a sense of failure. These are some of the characteristics of Americans and their leaders which even in some of the darkest times has kept us going. If we don't succeed the first time..try, try, try again. And like Churchill said famously, never, never, give up. I do think though that an undaunting spirit and courage can carry you far; but maybe if that is all you got not over the finish line.
Mod
After the war, America emerged as a different, modern nation. Goodwin writes "No segment of American society had been left untouched." Discuss the many strides that were made, as well as the fundamental changes that occurred. For example, as a result of the war, numerous advancements were made on behalf of African-Americans. Additionally, many women continued to work outside the home after the war was over, forever changing the domestic front.
Mod
Bentley
In response to Bentley's question in message #60, I highly recommend the book Brothers in Arms by Kareem Abdul-Jabbar. It is the story of the first black (african-american) tank battalion in WWII. It tells of their experiences and battles in the war, but it also tells of the inequality in the military at the beginning of the war, of the racism they experienced even while training. It was interesting that one racist thing they experienced was to find out they were never intended to fight in Europe. Their battalion was just created so the military could say, "Yes, we aren't keeping the black people from tanks." And when they were sent to Europe, because there just wasn't anyone else to send, their extra training served them well. They fought well, right alongside the other troops. Once in Europe, most of their problems were related to infantry leaders who weren't trained how to best use tanks as support.It was a great example to me of how we are all the same. There are idiots of every color. More importantly, there are men of wisdom and bravery of every color. And when the pressure came, the white troops didn't care what color the guys in the tanks were, they were just glad to see the tanks.
As we read more in No Ordinary Time, I wonder if we will see this kind of thing on the home front side. That is one of the advantages of tragic situations, it has the power to bring people together and teach them that we are all people. We can become united in dealing with the tragedy.
I think that is actually the biggest difference between the WWII generation and us today. They were united in a cause. I don't really see a cause today that can unite us as a nation.
Okay, now I'm rambling, and I probably said some things that aren't quite right. I apologize in advance for anything dumb I said. :)
Ed wrote: "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..."Ed .. I have to say, I agree to you absolutely. I think some people take political correctness way to far to the point of ignoring the past as if it didn't happen instead of learning from it.
Sarah
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 would agree with you that getting into WWII certainly helped the American economy. At the time, I believe it was mostly an accidental (and positive) side result. Of course, I have read some views that it was also one of the major reasons America entered the war. Seeing how unprepared we were for the war and given the fact that Hitler had been in power for 7 years before we started arming .. I tend to think we got involved because we had to, not because of any pre-meditated plan to stimulate our economy.
Of course, we certainly learned from the results what effects having a market for all of this production could do. The problem with the American economy in the 30s was a result of supply and demand. There were plenty of people available to work but nowhere to sell the products. There was a glut in the market for many products (especially produce) making the price for them less than the cost to make. The government learned from WWII that it had the ability to create a false demand for arms that could stimulate the economy. Most miliary contracts, I believe the number is over 95%, are still not bid on the open market but awarded to a few select firms at over-market prices. Sadly, the government isn't the only market for our arms, there is also a demand from other countries that we continue to supply legal or otherwise.
But to your point. I agree with you that the Military-Industrial complex is still with us today.
Mod
Sarah..prior to my going to Verdun..I just want to say that one thing that causes issues is taking sides..there are always folks on both sides of any issue and though the ones who seem to be more vocal are lining up on one side or another...there are many silent group members which may have a side too. The Second World War and even the mention of Hitler brings back bad memories for some and on the group forum where we are discussing No Ordinary Time we should probably get back to the book discussion at hand. Thanks for understanding; I have found sometimes that things can get out of hand on forums which start out innocently enough. There is the conversation thread where side discussions can take place on most subjects.
Right now let us get back to discussing pages 40 - 80 on this thread. I am wearing my moderator's hat now as I was when I responded to Ed's comments. I would like the conversation to move on beyond that point and talk about issues in the reading itself.
Bentley
Mod
Good post Elizabeth...sometimes everybody digresses.
Mod
Most historians suggest that the reason we got into the war was Pearl Harbour (the bombing by the Japanese). Back home, without that event,,it is unlikely that we would still have gotten in the war ourselves until possibly later. As far as the military complex..it is still with us.
Bentley wrote: "This is another readers' guide question.... After the war, America emerged as a different, modern nation. Goodwin writes "No segment of American society had been left untouched." Discuss the many strides that were made, as well as the fundamental changes that occurred. For example, as a result of the war, numerous advancements were made on behalf of African-Americans. Additionally, many women continued to work outside the home after the war was over, forever changing the domestic front."Bentley,
Where are you getting your reader's guide from? I'd be interested in seeing it.
Society, as a whole, was awaken and given a reason to shift into high gear. We were depressed economically. Because of that depression, we were not performing at a level at which justified our abilities. Once we were given a reason to stand up and flex our muscles, we not only showed the world, but also ourselves, that we were still young and simple, capable of much more. We were able to mature and grow into something much more complex than any nation ever before. All of the hot button issues of the day became not only more complex, but also out in the open. Eventually, the prosperity of the 1950's blossomed into the complexity and turmoil of the 1960's. Laws were put into place to improve poor working conditions, the equal rights acts of the 1960's were enacted, and the woman's movement of the late 60's and 70's started to take hold. Our action during the 1940's sped up our recognition that all men and women were really not created equal... even 100 years after the civil war. Would we have a black President today if our society wasn't given a shot in the arm from the 1940's? No, I don't think so.
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 ..."
Joe, I'm so with you on this one. I don't think that most people understand that WWII was a consequence of WWI. I can't wait to read the WWI book either.
Bentley, in response to question 60, I think that a major change in regard to America after WWII was that it no longer viewed itself as isolationist in regard to its foreign policy. If anything, the US emerged as a world leader and with that came the responsibility of deciding how much it should be involved in the affairs of other nations. Over time, we've heard that we've become the world's policeman, which makes us a target for some of those nations who would prefer that we stay out of their business. Currently, there is much debate over whether the US should return to more of an isolationist position when it comes to world affairs. Thus, as with most things, we are coming full circle on this issue.
Sera wrote: "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 if they ..."
Joe, I'm so with you on this one. I don't think that most people understand that WWII was a consequence of WWI. I can't wait to read the WWI book either.
"
I met an erudite British gentleman on a tour of the Ypres Battlefield who postulated that not only was WW II an extension of WW I but that together, they were essentially Europe's version of the U.S. Civil War. The difference being that an outsider (US) had to settle things.
Very provocative and perhaps a good way to look at those conflicts.
I too am looking forward to reading Keegan's book.
Mod
The problem with the Germans and the WWII is that, as with any other people, you can't put them all in one box.
Germany has a strong affinity for rules. They love them, live by them and even tell others living among them what is right and wrong. Without rules the society and its people would end in chaos.
One could say that that applies to all societies. Maybe. Some more, some less so, I believe.
In the years leading up to the war (as early as mid end twenties of the last century) many people were scared into voting for what we know is wrong. But what did they know? A lot would still deny knowing of anything, even those a few years later living practically next to the ovens in the camps.
I believe more knew than were willing to tell. More kept silent and more just walked where others walked. Let's face it, it takes an awful lot of courage in a closed society to stand up against the mass - even if quite a part of that mass is just walking along.
Fear, lack of individual thinking were what kept quite a few people from doing what in their hearts they knew was right.
Of course not all Germans were Nazis. But to say just the Nazis were the bad guys is not right either.
It wasn't just the SS and the regular army who killed. All the folks pointing to whomever they thought was alien were as much as fault as the ones pulling the trigger.
I can understand some people who out of fear chose to keep their eyes and ears shut and act as if they did not know. But I will never accept all those that fed the system.
Sadly most of those "gray" cases were left alone after the war and disappeared into the new society.
Ed wrote: "Sera wrote: "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. The..."
Ed, I think that the Brit's response is "spot on". I like that analogy and will use it in future dialogues around this topic.
In response to Bentley's question from the reader's guide, I do think that after African American men had fought for the U.S. and had experienced travel and probably the respect that went along with the uniform, coming back to "business as usual" would have been a big shock. This is described in at least two novels that come to mind, Toni Morrison's "Sula" and "Small Islands" by Levy. My dad told me that as a white man from the Midwest, the war was one of his first opportunities to interact with African Americans and he had never really thought about what they suffered in American society before then.
That's a good observation, Andrea. I hadn't thought about that before.I have had Small Island on my bookshelf at home, but I haven't been able to work it into my reading schedule yet. I've heard that it's a winner.
I think that another way in WWII changed America was in regard to the balance of power between the President and Congress. FDR instituted change at the top and found creative ways in which to get legislation passed quickly. The impact of his reliance upon judicial opinion and coming with up legislation is far-reaching. I think of GW Bush's reliance upon judicial opinion to support its use of certain interrogation techniques. Interestingly, I think that Obama follows more Lincoln than FDR in his approach to the Presidency. He tells Congress, I want "x" - now go make it happen, whereas FDR came up with the solution and found a way to do what he had to get it done. Lincoln was also a deferential leader when it came to policy-making, even though he was a master of timing and knowing how to build a consensus. I think that Obama is still struggling in this regard.
FDR's leadership during the crisis, which led to an assumption of power for the role of President, sets the precedent in regard to the unilateral actions that many modern Presidents have taken since then. It's amazing how much FDR shaped the future of this office while he was President.
Very interesting comments, Sera. I had never thought to compare how Lincoln and FDR worked with congress like that. I think you are right that FDR really changed the presidential role. Which makes it all the more important that we instituted term limits for the president. I think it was a good thing we could elect FDR 4 times, but I also think it is a good thing to not do it as a rule.
On page 74, Goodwin says, "he managed to shake off the burdens of the presidency upon his arrival at Hyde Park, and emerged stronger and more confident in a matter of days." Did FDR have the press with him the entire time at Hyde Park, the way it seems to be today? Or was shaking the reporters part of shaking off the presidency burdens? It seems today we so often see the press telling about a global incident and then saying that our president was loafing around at Camp David or wherever. Or just documenting the president's every breath. Perhaps if all presidents could get some rest and privacy, the way FDR did, they'd all be better able to handle whatever tasks they have.
Sera wrote: "I think that another way in WWII changed America was in regard to the balance of power between the President and Congress. FDR instituted change at the top and found creative ways in which to get ..."I almost agree with you. Would like to have you consider two things. One, Lincoln had a Congress that was basically in favor of the War and pretty much gave him what he wanted. Lincoln was also the first President to use proclamations to get things done like suspending Habeas Corpus and the Emancipation Proclamation both of which were extremely far-reaching. He sent the troops into NYC during the draft riots there, something no President had ever dared do.
Roosevelt did indeed take the Presidency into new territory and was working with a congress that was ostensibly supportive but was split on many issues.
I've read Libertarian literature that postulates that the end of democracy, as the Constitution intended, started with Lincoln. They do not see him as the hero most of us do.
Also, it's kinda hard to compare Lincoln's presidency with anyone else's because half of congress all left to join the Confederacy. Not to say he didn't have any opposition, but it was much easier for him to get things done when the southern representatives weren't there to vote against him. FDR was so respected, he was able to pass an enormous amount of legislation, even with a full body voting.
Mod
It is the reading guide questions published by the publisher of Kearns's book. The publisher site would have a copy.
Mod
Very interesting response Joe.
Mod
Your response is really important: what I find is that though America was needed and critical to Britain and other European countries saved by America in terms of supplies, munitions, weapons, etc: there is some resentment that is distinctly detectable by these same countries "after the fact"...resentment for needing help I guess in the first place. I think we should concentrate more at home and I think I can understand more the tone of Roosevelt's peers in terms of not getting involved in all of the world's issues. Do not mistake my comment; FDR did the admirable thing; but I think we are going beyond even FDR today; even our founding fathers warned to keep away from foreign entanglements. Eleanor's philosophy sometimes makes more sense to me nowadays.
Mod
Mod
Excellent point comparing the FDR reading with present day.
Ed wrote: "Sera wrote: "I think that another way in WWII changed America was in regard to the balance of power between the President and Congress. FDR instituted change at the top and found creative ways in ..."Ed, I appreciate the response. I guess it isn't fair to compare Lincoln in regard to how he shaped the Presidency as it relates to world affairs, since the Civil War and the actions that primarily impacted domestic affairs. However, I recall that Lincoln was able to keep Britain out of the Civil War, which had an interest in trading with the South for cotton. It just seemed to me that when it came to assuming power, FDR outright took it, whereas Lincoln was much more subtle and patient - perhaps too patient at times. We'll have more to compare after we read the Lincoln book as our next read.
Joe wrote: "Also, it's kinda hard to compare Lincoln's presidency with anyone else's because half of congress all left to join the Confederacy. Not to say he didn't have any opposition, but it was much easier ..."Joe, that's a good point, but the Republican party wasn't unified either, the biggest problem of which was getting the border states in the Mid-west to support his position. Again, it's interesting how the past reflects the ongoings of today. The Democrats have a majority in Congress, but differ along party lines in regard to most major issues that are impacting the US today.
Interesting question, Liz. I believe that people draw other people in who fit their own needs so I'm thinking that maybe FDR attracted these people, because he wanted to be looked up to and needed. The polio might have made FDR feel like a victim, and one way to combat this feeling was to be stronger than the people who surrounded him.
I agree, Liz. I find FDR to be an interesting character, because he surrounded himself with women who depended on him (Sara, Missy, Eleanor) and yet throughout her book, Goodwin describes him as being cold and emotionless during times when it appears that he wouldn't or even shouldn't be. I also think that perhaps that he was considered to lack compassion to be one of the reasons why Eleanor picked up the promotion of myriad social and welfare issues.
Mod
I just went through the entire thread once again and caught some books and authors where links/covers were not provided.
It is great to remember to use the add book/author feature when suggesting or referencing another great book. Don't forget about adding the author's link and/or photo either.
Here are some additional ones added:
Message 35: Tom Brokaw
Tom Brokaw
Message 36: Robert Remini
(No Photo)
Robert Remini
Message 41: Eric Roman
(No Photo)
Eric Roman
Message 53: Robert Harris
Robert Harris
Message 62: Kareem Abdoul-Jabbar
Kareem Abdul-Jabbar
Message 74: Authors Tony Morrison and Andrea Levy
Books: Sula and Small Islands
(No Photo of author)
Andrea Levy
Toni Morrison
Hi Folks So I have been behind and it is interesting to read others commentaries and see that many that I thought of already are here and I will go through the repsonses and make comments to some.
But what mihgt be interesting is that after the war the government forced dilution of the buildups of many of the US manufacturing firms at the expense of direct goveernment investment and government contracts.
If you are familiar with the logo of St. George slaying the dragon for Reynolds Aluminum (since bought by Alcoa in the recent past)it was symbolizing (and I have this from years I spend doing buisness with Reynolds so do not know the Alcoa or any other side)Reynolds slaying the dragon of a giant in the aluminum industry that Alcoa had become.
And of course aluminum had a tremendous surge in demand for the building of aircraft
Ed wrote: "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,..."Just a few comments on insightful perspectives.
I think that it is more generally known that we never got back to full economic activity until the war began but I do beleive that America would have more slowly albeit restored employment and general prosperity.
Also I was interested to learn that this was the beginning of the cost plus contracts in the defense industry. I htink it was justified in time of immediately expected danger or during war but I do beleive that the ensuring military industrial complex being permitted to have it continue to this day is more a negative than a positive. It seems that as long as each congressman gets "his share" of the business for his district and as long as the cost plus insures profitability in the district it is easy for the industry to make lots of money. It would be very interesting to see some initiation of firm price buying by the government for already established products.
I also would like to think for the NDAC part of the reasons that business men were choosen was that it enhanced the chances of success. Crossing the aisle was certainly an added benefit but he/ we needed men like Knudsen (GM chief).
Bentley wrote: "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..."So I think that FDR, having been Sec navey etc, was more concerned for the secutiry of America and was more aware than many (Eleanor included I think) others of the techlogical changes in warfare. If the US had stayed out of WW I I don't believe there would have been emminent danger to America but I thknk FDR knew it was different in 1940 - with the newer technologies and a fellow like Hitler.
I think that Eleanor had her priorities and did not realize the dangers
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..."So an observation on Virginia's and Viviane's remarks - I think that FDR and Eleanor were both right - and in that time of depression, even though it was improving since his election in 32, Eleanor paid the necessary attention to domestic issues and further kept a visible presence from the White House in front of the public. So I think FDR was clever and correct and Eleanor was able to focus on domestic problems that needed addressing
Joe wrote: "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 Japanes..."
Hi Joe
I beleive that not "everyone" has the American spirit.
And I have European friedns and a German wife but
My grandparents came over at the beginning of the last century (not speaking the language - no six hour flight to return to Europe) as did most Ameican ancestors - wanting to do better - not staying in the same community ot have the job or trade their fathers had beofre them.
My parents were supposed to do better - I was supposed to do better - almost would be considered a failuer if you did not do better.
That is not the case in the old countries.
And we have a continuing stream of immigrants who want to build (build - not live) lives here.
So I think we are not the same in character or drive as most other lands.
We have and have had the asset of much availabe space and many resources - but that is only part of it.
Russia by the way is cold but not barren - we remember two years ago and even now they threaten folks with cutting off their natural gas and they have about a third of the world's nickel at least in minerals (I am a stainless guy and you need 8 pounds of nickel for each 100 lbs. of most stainless steels)
- so I do not fully agree -
But you are absolutely right we had the resources and in the 1940's the insulation of oceans on both sides
Alexis wrote: "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 ..."
Alexis - alternative history is when a fictional book is written on the suppostition that something differentg happened -
i.e. the South won the Civil War of
the Axis won world war II
Ed wrote: "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..."Hi Ed
Not to disagree to strongly but although slavery contributed to what American, and other places, were. I see no direct link to slavery contributing to the independence of America. One would probably still have had the French British conflicts and eventually the taxation that made Americans feel non-British.
The issue seemed to be that Americans did not accept being taxed by the Brits. Otherwise it would more likely be industrialization and competition with the British rather than a strong agarian prodution to sell to Britain that would have led to an independence movement.
The History Book Club
Books mentioned in this topic
Sula (other topics)Small Island (other topics)
Brothers in Arms: The Epic Story of the 761st Tank Battalion, WWII's Forgotten Heroes (other topics)
The Man in the High Castle (other topics)
Fatherland (other topics)
More...
Authors mentioned in this topic
Eric Roman (other topics)Toni Morrison (other topics)
Tom Brokaw (other topics)
Robert Harris (other topics)
Andrea Levy (other topics)
More...
My husband will often avoid hard history lessons in movies, articles and books, as he feels it is overkill. But I believe otherwise, study and understand history (all of it - all pieces - all aspects) and we will make better decisions in the future.
Even with my children, I talk things out to a conclusion, we revisit topics like WWII and Nazis, concentration camps, slavery and racial prejudice repeatedly. Topics are revisited and my children are young (of course they also get their fill of Mommy's Catholic leanings too, which probably helps to balance a lot of it all).
Even understanding about electric-shock therapy is useful to me, no matter how uncomfortable it makes me feel.
I may choose not to watch footage of war in Iraq or Afghanistan, just as in college I avoided Vietnam War and later history classes, I felt the teachers were "too close" to the subject matter - but trust me - I study the issues and the history.
Give it to me straight - every time - and I will use my knowledge and mind to find my opinion, the truth and the lesson.