1 comments about First Lady from Plains.

1. She was an ideal first lady. And she's written the best look at a president's term through the eyes of his wife.

5 comments about The Bushes: Portrait of a Dynasty.

1. Biographies of prominent individuals or families are generally researched studies that give us a deeper look into the subjects. But this tale of the Bush family is a flawed skimming of all the questions that ought to be explored. We get little in the way of serious personal portrait of family individuals and especially the two President Bushes. Instead a sugarcoated story that excuses all their bad behavior and poor decisions almost without exception is served up in a manner designed, but failing, to evoke admiration. It reminds one of those complimentary biographies that CEOs pay to have written. It further always assumes that the reader will agree with the Bushes political actions leading you to conclude that no serious scholarship was intended by this work. The only accurate description would be that it is shallow, like the Bushes.



2. Peter and Rochelle Schweizer, the authors of The Bushes: Portrait of a Dynasty, claim to have relied mainly on interviews with friends and family members of George W. and George H. W. Bush for their information. The authors' politics apparently leans to the right, judging from the recent release of a new book by Schweizer about the hypocrisy of liberals. And yet, The Bushes: Portrait of a Dynasty, while hardly a brutal attack on the family, does not leave the reader with a very positive view of the Bushes.
   
   George H. W. comes across as an ambitious man who schmoozed his way into jobs, and who worked hard, but who had no big goals he wanted to accomplish. He famously acknowledged that he lacked "the vision thing." He seemed to be absent as a father, but that wasn't unusual in those days. Still, for a man who claimed to prize loyalty and family above all, it was unforgivable for him to miss George W.'s graduation from Yale. His father's absence at the ceremony was a big disappointment to George W., according to this book, so it seems even stranger that he too would miss his own daughters' graduations.
   
   George W., in this book, comes across as a rude, foul-mouthed, ruthless politician who learned the family business while acting the heavy during his father's administration. He also learned that the press was the enemy and that his father wasn't tough enough. His behavior while he was drinking was irresponsible, but after he stopped drinking and found religion, he didn't seem to be any more pleasant to be around. He still mocked friends as well as perceived enemies and was strident about his religious beliefs.
   
   I'll admit that I skipped most of the parts about the generations before George H. W., but the sections on the two presidents, plus Jeb and the other brothers, make up for the boring spots. The women are glossed over, not because of the authors' bias, but because women are only for support in this family. Barbara burst out of that role and upstaged her husband, but it is unlikely that Laura will do anything like that. And the lone sister, Doro, makes no mark at all.
   
   Portrait of a Dynasty is an enjoyable read, and I have only one quibble. There is too much repitition. In one paragraph, Laura is described first as "shy," then as "reluctant,", and finally as "shy and reluctant." Maureen Dowd's on-again, off-again e-mail correspondence with George H. W. is mentioned several times. This sort of thing happens throughout the book. Other than that, I recommend the book to Bush fans and non-fans alike.



3. Schweizer continues to flog his breathless admiration of everyone wealthy, Republican and corrupt.
   
   Schweizer utterly fails to address the Bushes' multifarious connections to both Organized Crime and to the Nazi Party. After all, when Schweizer refers to a "company headed by Prescott Bush", he neglects to address the fact that that company was the Union Banking Corporation which invested in Nazi industrialization and profited from slave labor at Auschwitz. (See John Loftus's books, if you doubt this.)
   
   And, when he says that Prescott Bush was defeated because of smears of being "for" birth control, Schweizer fails to note that the Senator was a charter member of the International Eugenics League - a group that does NOT promote "birth control" but one that, rather, promotes the sterilization of the illegal, the immoral, the disadvantaged, the poor, the needy and the retarded, and practically every other social group that was deemed unfit for inclusion in the Bushes' "polite society".



4. I generally read more on business and technology but picked up a copy of this book just to get an idea of Bush's background.
   
   I agree with one of the reviewers that it's hard to write an unbiased book on such a political topic. The book is certainly pro-Bush but gives a glimpse into the generations of the political dynasty.
   
   Two key takeaways from the book:
   * Oil is certainly in the family, perhaps the reason why the President focuses on energy as a means of National Security.
   * The power of the Yale Cosa Nostra, and the Skull and Bones Society...repeated in several chapters



5. Very well-done and ambitiously-scoped biography of the Bush family, as well as the Walkers they intermarried with a few generations back to form what we know as the Bush `dynasty' today (although the Bushes themselves hate that word). Not biased for or against the family either way, it manages to be very thorough and completely devoid of political judgment, yet full of valuable personal and political detail from an historical point of view.
   
   It's always difficult for biographers to decide exactly where to begin, but to best tell the story of the Bushes they began four generations back, with Samuel Prescott Bush, who was George Sr's grandfather and the son of a clergyman. There are many, many branches of the Bush family tree, but the Schweizers concentrate, naturally, on the direct line of Bushes who ended up in American politics. I value the personal details most of all, since I always find those the most interesting. For instance, the Bush men don't inherit the bulk of their wealth (and their wealth is not as extensive as most probably think). Rather, each is expected to make his own way, which is why they all ended up in different industries: manufacturing, railroads, steel, oil, etc. They do, of course, have the advantage of name and connections and make full use of that; they just don't inherit a big pot of money when they turn a certain age.
   
   I really enjoyed the in-depth look of the very different personalities of the Bushes, particularly the reserved George Sr., the aggressive, focused W., and the ambitious, conflicted Jeb, as well as some of the Bush women - Dottie (George Sr's mother), Barbara, and Laura. One of the most poignant details, to me, was the story of how Barbara Bush ended up with the snowy white hair everyone lambasted her for because she looked more like George's mother than his wife. Apparently they had a daughter, Robin, who was born a few years after W. While still a toddler she was diagnosed with advanced leukemia, and from diagnosis to death she lived about eight months - never improving at all, just dying a slow and painful death. It was over those eight months of watching her daughter die that Barbara's hair turned from dark auburn to completely white. When George began his first forays into politics she did heed the advice of PR people and tried to color it, but the dye wouldn't take and ended up running down her face and neck, at which point she stopped trying. It must have felt to her like a badge and constant reminder of the terrible pain she endured during that time as a young mother. Very sad.
   
   The husband-and-wife team of Peter and Rochelle Schweizer do an excellent job of bringing this very large and tightly-knit family to life, not an easy to thing to do given the size of the family and their reticence at talking very much about themselves. As biographies go it's one of the better ones I've read.

5 comments about Hostage to Fortune: The Letters of Joseph P. Kennedy.

1. I have read countless books on the Kennedys and I've got to say this is, by far, one of the most valuable books I've read.

   Amanda Smith, who is Joseph P. Kennedy's grandaughter, did a phenomenal job gathering correspondences between Joe Kennedy and family members, dignitaries, colleagues and friends during the years of 1914-1961. The manner in which Smith compiled the letters allows for a smooth and enjoyable read of the book.

   I am quite impressed (and thankful!) that Smith meticulously documented and made footnotes of the individuals who were either the recipient or author of a letter or are mentioned in the correspondence - as it provides the reader with a much better understanding of the context of the letter.

   I've always had a strong appreciation and interest in reading original documents and writings. Amanda Smith truly did a fantastic job editing the letters and showing a new side of Joe Kennedy which I never saw before.

   Definately well worth the cost of the book and most certainly recommended with the highest regard for those who enjoy reading about the Kennedys, political science, or correspondences.




2. What a nice surprise to see a book about the Kennedy family based on fact. Smith's choice of letters help the reader visualize Joseph Kennedy as father, businessman, and ambassador. These letters are as historically important as they are touching. Smith's work has given us first hand accounts of many great historical events of the 20th century. This book will prove to be an important resource for biographers as well as a wonderful gift to Smith's own family. Highly recommend.



3. Famed patriarch Joseph Kennedy Sr.'s granddaughter, Amanda Smith (she is the daughter of Jean Kennedy Smith) did an extraordinary job of collecting missives written by various family members over a period of nearly half a century. The years 1914-1961 are meticulously laid out in militarily neat precision; it is through these letters that readers glean insights into the dynamics of a famous family.

   My favorite parts in the book were the letters to, by and about the late Senator Robert Kennedy. Third son and seventh child of patriarch Joseph Kennedy, readers are treated to witness his growth and development, almost from the beginning. A composition he wrote at age 13 describing himself and his preferences is enlightening. One can smile at the boy who strove to keep up with his older siblings revisited in the man who achieved leadership status. From all accounts, Robert Kennedy was a diligent worker; the boy who sought to make himself heard by his siblings and by Joe, Sr. became the man who served as the voice for many. In adult life his voice was one that was very much heard and resounded throughout history. In reading this, it was impossible not to cheer his progress and feel encouraged by what he accomplished in his lifetime.

   This is a delightful "peek behind the curtain" into the dynamics of generations of Kennedys.

   I loved it.




4. I suppose if you have not read any legitimate studies about the Kennedy's you might find this book interesting, but it really is a very selective and misleading account of a family that has had a major impact on the USA. While it is good to see these letters published, I suspect that there are hundreds more which will never see the light of day since they would paint a much more balanced picture of this family. Joseph P. Kennedy was a very rich, very influential pol in Democrat Party politics. He was also someone who got in bed with the Mafia, which probably led to the death of JFK, got into bed with numerous Hollywood sluts, which gave his sons their lack of a moral compass, was a physical coward when it came to dealing with Fascism, and a bigot who didn't really have a problem with Hitler's "final solution" in getting rid of the Jews he hated from the core of his being. But he did a good job of using his millions to steal the 1960 election through voter fraud to get his son elected. I suspect that he never gave a thought to whether it was all worth it while seeing his sons buried. The most interesting thing about these letters however is that his remaining spawn, Teddy, is really the apple of his father's eye. A total pol, with zero understanding of the need for some view of the future through something other than a politician's lens, JPK Sr. was a great teacher for Teddy's willingness to turn a blind eye to evil and run for cover when the going got tough. A revealing book when you consider that the editing done was to put this family in the best light. But at least it is a start, and future revelations will show this book to be the unbalanced white-wash that it is.



5. Amanda Smith does a fair job in assembling a number of letters to, from and about her grandfather, Amb. Joseph P. Kennedy. She does not hold back some of the more unsavory parts of his life, from the affair with Gloria Swanson to the use of racist terms for blacks and disparaging comments about Jews. Her introductary essay is very moving and well written. Certainly this book helps dispel a number of the myths that the sensationalist books on the Kennedy patriarch seem to propel.
   
   And yet there is much more that needs to be done. These can not be all of Kennedy's letters; we know that a number of them remain almost inaccesable to researchers. Furthermore, while some of Joseph Kennedy's public speeches and statements are included (for example his endorsement of FDR in the 1940 campaign from which the book takes its name), a number of key speeches (such as Kennedy's testimony in support of Lend Lease and his radio speech on the same issue from January 1941-speeches that do a great deal to dispel the myth of Kennedy as a pure isolationist) are not included.
   
   Without more access to the Joe Kennedy papers, he will remain a mythical figure, the target for sensationalists and scandal mongers. Kennedy's important role in American life and politics warrant more attention and this collection is not a bad start but much more needs to be done.

No comments about Owen Dixon: A Biography (Miegunyah Volumes).

No comments about The Papers of Robert A. Taft: 1945-1948 (Papers of Robert a Taft).

5 comments about Che Guevara Speaks: Selected Speeches and Writings.

1. This book contains some of the great works of Ernesto Che Guevara, such as, "Socialism and Man in Cuba," a classic, and the speech to the Tricontinental Congress where he called for "Two, Three, Many Vietnams." If you only know Che as an icon on a poster or t-shirt, buy this book to read what he had to say.



2. Read this book and you will understand why the CIA and the US military chased Che Guevara from Cuba to Africa to Bolivia to murder him.
   
   Che was more than just a heroic revolutionary example for his time. He was an important revolutionary thinker who continued the ideas of real revolutionary Marxism against the awful vision of Stalinist dictatorship and reformist compliance with capitalism.
   
   In these speeches and articles, especially in his On Socialism and Man Che uses the practical experience of Cuba to continue Marx and Lenin's discussion of what the fight for socialism is all about. With the growing social and economic crisis in the world, with the need for anti-imperialist struggle in the Mid East, Korea, and Venezuela, Che's ideas are needed today as much or even more than when he lived. Also read Pathfinder's acclaimed editions of The Bolivian Diary of Ernesto Che Guevara and Che's Episodes of the Cuban Revolutionary War, 1956-5
   
   
   While this book may not be directly available from Amazon at times, they are available from the booksfrompathfinder on Amazon that you can find by clicking on the new and used books on this page.



3. The basics of the ideas that were the guide to Che Guevara's actions are all here.
   The need for workers and farmers to support each others' struggles for freedom
   without regard to borders ( working-class internationalism ); the impossibility of a peaceful or
   electoral road to a "nice"; capitalism; the role of the political consciousness of the
   working class-- and the need for workers to lead-- in the economic and political process of
   building socialism; the struggle against bureaucracy; the role of revolutionary armed struggle
   to defeat the most ruthless empire the world has ever seen--the Yanqui Empire; the
   flowering of the individual under socialism and the building of a new human in the process of
   revolutionary struggle;how we working people can improve ourselves as human
   beings by participating in that struggle; all these themes to which Che returned again and
   again as subjects to act on are in basic outline in this book. Here you will find, not the icon on
   a poster or t-shirt, but the living world-revolutionary leader whose perspectives we need
   today and will need tomorrow in the battle to bring down the U.S-the
   last-Empire.While Amazon may describe this book as not available from time to time, it is always available from the Pathfinder z store listed under new and used at the top of this page.



4. Anyone who has believed the myth of Che Guevara should read not only this book, but also the denunciation of his victims.

   These speeches are mere propaganda a-la Stalin and Fidel Castro.

   His victims, those who survived this man's criminal career, speak from their hearts and not from the powerful position that people like Che Guevara used to oppressed the Cuban people,

   These faked prophets denied the Cuban people the freedom they professed were bringing!

   Che Guevara today is no more that a sad caricature of what once was a powerful Orwellian propaganda machine.

   The truth about this man will show up. Many were duped. Many wanted to believe this man. He died the same way he treated hundreds of Cubans in the firing squad under his direct orders.




5. Unfortunatly we have to hear the oppinion of Uneducated people
   people like Elena Simeon from Havana, Cuba. From her review I
   can guess that she was probaly raised on a wellof family like
   most rich SCAMS-BUGS cubans in Miami. I am not including the
   great majority of cubans in miami who have a heart bigger then
   Fidel's for cuba. I am not an advocate of FIdel at all.
   I think he is another educated failure of our times.
   BUT CHE was different the man cared for people and he proved it.
   If not ask most cubans, Congolises, Europeans ..... we need
   more man who care for the children of this world.

No comments about The Diary of Georgi Dimitrov, 1933-1949.

No comments about Vision in the Desert.

5 comments about Che: Images of a Revolutionary.

1. I think this is the best book of Che Guevara that I've read, and im really read a lot of him. It's perspective it's ecuanimous and objetive and show to the readers, many pictures of his life than we never know. I'm not triying to write some kind of promotion but i feel compromised to say my experience with the book.



2. Anyone interested in one of the 20th centuries most enigmatic and charismatic figures will love this book. This is an excellent source to compliment the book by Jon Anderson or to enjoy by itself. Filled with over 400 photgraphs, many rare and never seen before, this book captures the image of the man in the various years of his life, most notably his years spent in Cuba. To see the man in all his glory, whether it be sipping his beloved mate, smoking a cigar or fighting his guerrilla war somewhere, his face is unforgetable and this book shows the many facets of his personality. The text is an easy read that can be read in one sitting but the pictures are priceless and require one's attention over and over. This is a book that sits prominently in full view in my house for quick browsing. The photos are exquisite, taken from various sources including one's taken by Che himself. Of particular interest is a section of the book that deals with the now fanous photo taken by Korda that is the image most people know of Che. This is the image that adorns everything from t-shirts to money that was taken during a service for for the victims of an explosion on a ship in 1960, one of the images of our times. The contact strip is included and the various degrees of differences can be noted. Of even more interest is the image of Che's corpse that was displayed by the Bolivian authorites and a comparison to the art of Mantegna's Dead Christ. The resemblance is uncanny. The open eyes of Che, even in death, are more alive than many of the people alive who walk around with tombstones in their eyes. This is an excepional book that chronicles the life and times of Ernesto Guevara, portraying an image in text and magnificent photographs of the man, not the myth, known as Che.



3. Filled with photos of Che from childhood until his death, if you want to know more about him thru photography then this book is a fine start. Also to read Che: A Revolutionary Life by Jon Lee Anderson, the best biography ever written about him.



4. This is not a book for the general public but for leftists.
   And it isn't about HISTORY but about Communist mythologie.
   Contains several omissions:

   .It forgets to informate the readers about what Che Gue Vara did
   when he and his guerrileros went to Bolivia to "Liberate" the Bolivian peasants: they assassinated about 50 people ( peasant and soldiers in ambushes ) BEFORE he himself was captured and executed.
   The Bolivians felt strange about this "Liberation" and not even one (!) joined his "red terror" band ( they actually told the Bolivian army the precise local where the che's band was ).
   In other words, CHE GUE VARA TASTED HIS OWN POISON but the author (and some reviewers) made him a martyr and think America is the real guiltie....
   it hurts the intelligence of a rational person

   .it says very little about Che's cruelty and crimes: in Las Cabanas prison he ordered the execution of hundreds of people( some of them former brothers in arms which refused communism and stayed democratic ).SOME OF THEM WERE SHOT BY HIM, to give the example...
   CHE incentivated their followers during those executions: « DON'T WAISTE TIME WITH THE CAUSES, THIS IS A REVOLUTION, DON'T USE LEGAL METHODS OF THE BURGUEOSOIS, THE PROVE IS SECONDARY.
   IT'S NECESSARY TO ACT BY CONVICTION!»
   We bet they did.
   And the Mass Killings of the "enemies of the people" in Santa Clara Prison (some years later )is practically omissed by the author.
   etc etc i could go on AD INFINITUM..

   Omited too is the TROPICAL GULAG, the concentration camps and prisons system( or "REEDUCATION" CAMPS like CHE used to called them),where have been imprisioned since 1959 until today about 100 000 political prisioners.
   Read how they were and still are beaten and forced to drink they own urine in AGAINST ALL HOPE of Valladares in Amazon.com




5. This is not a book for the general public but for leftists.
   And it isn't about HISTORY but about Communist mythologie.
   Contains several omissions:

   .It forgets to informate the readers about what Che Gue Vara did
   when he and his guerrileros went to Bolivia to "Liberate" the Bolivian peasants: they assassinated about 50 people ( peasant and soldiers in ambushes ) BEFORE he himself was captured and executed.
   The Bolivians felt strange about this "Liberation" and not even one (!) joined his "red terror" band ( they actually told the Bolivian army the precise local where the che's band was ).
   In other words, CHE GUE VARA TASTED HIS OWN POISON but the author (and some reviewers) made him a martyr and think America is the real guiltie....
   it hurts the intelligence of a rational person

   .it says very little about Che's cruelty and crimes: in Las Cabanas prison he ordered the execution of hundreds of people( some of them former brothers in arms which refused communism and stayed democratic ).SOME OF THEM WERE SHOT BY HIM, to give the example...
   CHE incentivated their followers during those executions: « DON'T WAISTE TIME WITH THE CAUSES, THIS IS A REVOLUTION, DON'T USE LEGAL METHODS OF THE BURGUEOSOIS, THE PROVE IS SECONDARY.
   IT'S NECESSARY TO ACT BY CONVICTION!»
   We bet they did.
   And the Mass Killings of the "enemies of the people" in Santa Clara Prison (some years later )is practically omissed by the author.
   etc etc i could go on AD INFINITUM..

   Omited too is the TROPICAL GULAG, the concentration camps and prisons system( or "REEDUCATION" CAMPS like CHE used to called them),where have been imprisioned since 1959 until today about 100 000 political prisioners.
   Read how they were and still are beaten and forced to drink they own urine in AGAINST ALL HOPE of Valladares in Amazon.com

5 comments about FDR: The War President, 1940-1943: A History.

1. It's a shame that Professor Davis did not live to complete his massive biography of FDR. But what he left is a most thoughtful and provocative account of how Roosevelt steered a reluctant country into a war it had to wage. Davis is skeptical of FDR's management of the war effort -- the president's compulsive manipulation of his staff, his over-reliance on self-interested industrialists for war production, and, above all, the woeful lack of response to the Holocaust. But Professor Davis is not a revisionist -- he makes it clear that the Americans had to fight World War II to stop Nazi-fascism and preserve Western civilization, and that no one else on the American scene could have taken the country in that direction. In "The War President," Professor Davis builds on the strengths of his previous volumes with his enlightening commentary on the impact of modernity and technology on presidential leadership. And he adds to his sketches of the figures who played a role in FDR's life -- Churchill, Harry Hopkins, Wendell Willkie and many others. I hated to see the book end, but the final scene is very poignant, with the President spending a New Year's Eve watching the film Casablanca as he is sending Americans to fight in North Africa.



2. Although Davis' book runs 757 pages, it only covers about 4 years real time. If you take the plunge, you will learn much about FDR, the War, and Davis (the author). I have read many books about the military conduct of WWII, from all sides. This was my first book about Great Leaders, Diplomacy, and World War strategy from the "Top." Most of this was new to me and most of the main points in the book don't show Roosevelt in a favorable light. Here are some of the big sins Davis reveals:

   1. FDR was clearly deceptive in his 1940 Campaign. He promised American mothers that he would keep us out of the War but he was already anxious to get us into the European War.

   2. FDR sold out most of his liberal principles in fighting the War. For instance, he placed industrialists in top positions, he put republicans in the cabinet, looked the other way when large firms ignored labor laws during the war, refused to embrace Henry Wallace's "Century of the Common Man." etc. Worst of all, large firms made money on their contracts! There is a long list
   of FDRs actions that show that the FDR's approach to the War effectively ended the New Deal program.

   3. There was much more tension between Americans and English than I realized. As far as military strategy, the Americans wanted to attack the Germans directly, ASAP, whereas the English
   preferred to attack the Germans indirecty, sometime later....
   The English were afraid of the Germans, who had just recently kicked them out of France, Greece, North Africa, etc. At one point in 1942, General Marshall was ready to jettison the English approach, the Torch invasion, and shift US resources to the Pacific. Roosevelt agreed to English strategies....

   4. FDR thought he could charm Stalin, "uncle joe." What a colossal miscalculation of Stalin's character.

   5. FDR did not worry much about civil liberties, authorizing the "evacuation" of the West Coast Japanese, letting the FBI run rampant with wire-tapping, etc.

   6. FDR was an unprincipled man, devious, back-stabbing, disloyal to people who had backed him for decades, such as Hillman, and Farley. Davis claims FDR could turn his emotions on and off to serve practical requirements. He could not be trusted.

   7. And the final, greatest sin; FDR knew much about the Holocaust by 1942 and he refused to shout it from the rooftops.
   FDR was not anti-semitic, but he did not want his legion of enemies to label it "A War to Save Jews" because FDR knew that many American (voters) were anti-semitic.........

   Somehow, Davis is willing to look past all these sins to
   claim that FDR still deserves to be classified as a great president. Apparently FDRs unwavering focus on winning the War can offset even the largest sins.I'm not so sure.

   As for Davis, his absolute hatred for capitalism and big business is reiterated on every other page. He also puts forth
   a vague theory about technology and human welfare that readers can safely ignore. Davis prefers some kind of socialist state.

   All in all, it made me curious to read more about FDR.




3. This last of five great volumes continues to look at Roosevelt and his times from the progressive Left. Davis was a liberal New Dealer (with the AAA) and he surveys FDR's third term with a view to what might-have-been through the eyes of one of many who welcomed a more fundamental shift from "selfish materialism" to "selfless ideology" in America. What better perspective to measure this century's greatest Democrat?

   Ignore Michael Lind's NY Times review -- except to get a taste of the reactionary manifesto FDR was up against; he simply trashes Davis's liberalism with a neo-con, op-ed spin piece on commies and big business, and concludes the book to be historical fiction. And why the accusation of "calumny" when Davis posits psychology as one of several possible explanations for FDR's inaction to the final solution? Only last year did we learn of John McCloy's discussion with an irate President about bombing Auschwitz ("Why, the idea! I won't have anything to do with it. We'll be accused of participating in this horrible business."), which was insight kept secret for forty years. With such precious little information about the motives of an aging, instinctive President who was always reluctant to espouse the ideological over the pragmatic, why is it unethical to suppose that he "may" have felt the politics of rescue to be personally overwhelming?

   Don't let one review deter you from a great history and a great story. From the Grand Alliance to Pearl Harbor to Casablanca and the Darlan Deal, the book presents a magnificent frieze. I give it four stars only because, alas, it ends prematurely.




4. I purchased this book in the hopes of finding insight into FDR's disability. This huge volume discusses everything and includes about one page total (if that) about it, providing a look into how FDR did and did not discuss his disability. Interesting how the history books and buffs don't talk about it much, but disappointing also so I only gave it 3. If you're a history buff and reading it to find out about the politics of the day and such, you would like it more.



5. To the layman, FDR's name is associated with Pearl Harbour dilemma and the consequential entry of USA into WWII.
   We have read the memoirs of Winston Churchill and seen impassioned appeals (some were even desperate) by the Allied player (France's Reynaud and England's WC) to the American President to interfere. Yet the appeals never effectively addressed the American public opinion.
   The French never understood how FDR could be a `leader' in his country and at the same time stood powerless to make decisions.
   The French, in the bloody and crowded events that encroached them in first half of 1940, could not fully appreciate the American System.
   But the British did.
   The public opinion in the USA, during 1939 and 1940, was one that when the allied had an edge in any battle against the Germans `so what, you see anyway they can win without us (USA)' when Germany was winning, the thinking was `Okay, since it's all over we better stay out, there is nothing we can do anymore'.
   American public opinion was divided and pacifists regarded the French appeals to `come to their rescue', emotionally hysterical. The French must have known how far was FDR bound by the congressional limits that formulated USA foreign policies.
   FDR could not have possibly made his decision apart from the American system, based on personal whims, notably when re-elections were due. FDR was bound to make American voters to see how far he was not missing any opportunity-however small- to prevent an all-out war.
   We should remember that before the war FDR had asked the Congress to approve his request for arms embargo to any country in a condition of `aggression' and the Congress refused unless the embargo applied to all countries concerned.
   Many American felt the Nazi had been forced to fight a war they never wanted.
   British propaganda machines were able to convince a big chuck of the public opinion in the USA that the Nazi had actually betrayed the Versailles Treaty (Post WWI). Wall Street and money mongers were also supporting this thesis. When Germany signed non-belligerent pact with USSR, many pacifists in America claimed that the war between the Europeans was imperialist in nature and urged FDR not to enter forcibly into it. FDR was even accused by the very few American Communists that he was indeed planning to do this.
   Although the French wanted them to come sooner than later, Churchill was convinced that in the end America would go to war, and he knew how far FDR depended on the public opinions at home.
   In his memoirs WC recounted that Lord Lothian (British Ambassador to USA) saw FDR and discussed `among other things, the danger facing America if a) some part of the British fleet fell to the Germans hand in the event of Nazi victory and 2) what are the chances of USA `being at war with Hitler' 3) FDR reiterated that `much depended not only on American Public Opinion but also on whether before that time dictators had taken some action which compelled the USA to go to war in self-defence' 4) only Congress could make commitments to war.
   
   Was FDR aware of the Japanese attack (`sudden attack' as the world was led to believe at all times) before it happened?
   Or had someone held from him the intelligence, which was then available that an air strike was forthcoming?
   
   Pearl harbour was the real casus belli that justified to the American public opinion the urgency of their country to enter the war, after all this was the highly coveted compelling opportunity for USA to fight in self-defence.
   
   When will historians be able to access the documents to sort out this inscrutable mystery?
   
   It may remain a mystery though because the worst thing for any leader is to hurt the intelligent minds of his people.