the book is a fake i did not like it it sucked and was very boring it did not tell the right facts and was very boring.

Failing to apply the lessons gathered over 2500 years of Western political philosophy and the 150 years of this nation's history prior to the Roosevelt regime, this book takes an incredibly biased view of the many deceitful actions taken by Roosevelt and his statist cronies during their underhanded and, unfortunately, successful efforts to initiate the transition of this nation from the minimal central government envisioned by our Founding Fathers to the current era of total government. This book is one for those who believe that the 50% of their income that is currently taken from them via direct and hidden taxes is simply "their fair share" of the financial burden caused by a bloated, inefficient, and incredibly intrusive but, to them, infinitely desirable central government.

this book looks appealing, but it did not live up to my expectations. i find hoover a very interesting person and roosevelt even more interesting, however this book made their lives into a long, monotonous book that was hard to stay awake for.

This book is one of the most extensive critiques of Roosevelt's foreign policy ever penned. It criticizes him for appeasing Germany, while taking an unfairly harsh line towards Italy and Japan. Marks criticizes Roosevelt for insularity, ignorance and dogmatism. His officials are unreliable, while FDR mistakingly believes you can buy respect and supports misguided pacifism when a strong show of force is required. He seeks to sabatoge Chiang Kai-Shek and is far too indulgent towards Stalin. His first months in office encourage isolationism and his attitude towards Latin America only encourages the contempt that continent feels towards a weak master. Footnotes makes up a quarter of a book, the bibliography is long and extensive, and Marks has engaged in multi archival research from Taiwan to Canada, as well as from Britain and France. Were Marks' view accepted it would lead to a major decrease in Franklin Roosevelt's reputation.

As it happens, Marks' revisionism will not succeed because despite the effort involved, it is seriously flawed. Marks shows a strong, unrelenting prejudice against FDR at every turn (his books on Teddy Roosevelt and John Foster Dulles show the opposite problem). There are two major flaws to this work. First, there is the biased selection of evidence. In order to make Italy and Japan look more reasonable Marks cities Italian and Japanese propoganda on the Ethiopian war and the Manchurian crisis respectively. There is no mention of the Rape of Nanking. Admiral Horthy, ruler of Axis Hungary, says FDR was insufficiently anti-communist, a view that is seconded by Franco's pro-Axis foreign minister. Hitler's slippery dishonest finance minister Schacht is quoted as saying that FDR thought that Hitler was good for Germany. Hitler's disreputable vice-chancellor, von Papen is quoted to contrast Winston Churchill's supposed mercy in comparison to FDR's bloodthirstiness on the Nuremberg trials. (Actually it was American officials who took the lead on the matter.) Whether they are pro-Japanese appeasers, propagandists for the China lobby, or sentimental frenchmen who unfairly blame Roosevelt for the demise of the French colonial empire, Marks blandly praises their genius while ignoring compelling counter-evidence.

Likewise, there is a lack of balance in the book. More space is given on the 1937 Brussells conference on Asian problems than on the Breton Woods Conference that set up the post-war economic order. One suspects this has much to do with the fact that France and England blamed FDR for its failure. Much of the archival evidence from Britain and France consists in complaints from the less than brilliant Halifax and Bonnett. Much is made of the gaucheries and mistakes of Roosevelt's diplomats, while statesman like General Marshall and Henry Stimson are almost ignored. So, for that matter, is much of the conduct of the war. Chaing's regime is blatantly whitewashed while the opposing case is never countered or, as in the case of Lloyd Eastman's Seeds of Destruction, read. Flaws that apply equally to Dulles and TR, such as bigotry and ignorance, are applied to FDR alone. There is something tendentious and questionable on every page. On no account should anyone consider anything mentioned here as definitive.