Telling the truth takes guts when it comes to a sanctified icon, backed by well established and fed ignorance. The brave author tells it the way it is, as far as he knows. "Some of my best friends are communists" came from the mouth of FDR when a congressman attempted to alert him of the "imaginary" danger of communist theft, subversion and outright treason in his administration. If the author takes a good look at what is to be found behind these words, he might have to think twice before he gives his findings to the printer. But in long run he will feel good.

"...It was folly to believe that if Russia was treated as a friendly ally that country would respond in kind", said in 1957 Nicholas Roosevelt. A folly it was, for which a hundred excuses are found. A folly glorified to this day by almost all.

Great Book! One of the most accurate accounts of FDR & Stalin

In The Juggler, Warren Kimball attempts to paint a new picture of FDR's foreign policy. Warren Kimball's thesis is that FDR had a vision for his foreign policy and did not merely react to events but attempted to craft a post-World War II world. From Lend-Lease to World War II, Kimball argues that FDR was consistent in his beliefs and desires. As a politician, FDR (unlike President Wilson) was willing to compromise to ensure his dream would come to pass.

The tragedy was the FDR's vision was beyond humanity. Like Communism, he thought that the utopian ideal would allow humanity to transcend our weaknesses. War would no longer be profitable so nobody would want to wage it. This vision went beyond his grasp to attain. He did succeed (whether it was he doing or merely the geopolitical realities of the Russian threat) in ensuring that the UN would be founded and that the US would continue its presence in world affairs.

Warren Kimball wrote an important book to dispel the preconceptions of FDR's foreign policy. Despite contradictions and vague notions, FDR did have a larger vision and didn't spent his Presidency merely reacting to foreign events.

An outstanding contribution to World War Two diplomatic history, Warren Kimball lays to rest one of the old chestnuts common to most people - that Franklin D. Roosevelt, the domestic reformer, had no consistent foreign policy, merely reacting to events. Weaving humour, deft insight, an unparalleled knowledge of the sources (Mr. Kimball is the editor of the FDR-Churchill correspondence) and diplomatic history together wonderfully, the Juggler is one of the central texts for anyone looking at the wartime Grand Alliance.

I usually detest these types of books, which are written by business executives trying to pose as top-flight historians. But I was surprised and pleased by Axelrod's approach to FDR, and this would be an excellent book for people new to Roosevelt. The author assembles various quotes from Roosevelt and then applies them to real life situations we all face and fret about. Of course FDR was born with a silver spoon in his mouth and was a spoiled, coddled young man. The polio that struck him at the age of 39 was the great leveler and it transformed Franklin from a "feather duster" into a truly great man. Axelrod leads the reader down the path of Roosevelt's life, dispensing the major details and eliminating all the superfluous fluff. This results in a tight, well-written book.

It's fashionable in today's political climate to trash Roosevelt and trot out oodles of mis-information about the greatest President of the 20th century. Thankfully, this little book sets the record straight on a great and essential American.

Those already familiar with Axelrod's previous works already know that he possesses a unique talent for recognizing and then examining with meticulous care especially effective qualities of personality and character in great leaders such as Elizabeth I and George S. Patton.

I recently read two separate but related books, this one and Celia Sandys and Jonathan Littman's We Shall Not Fail: the Inspiring Leadership of Winston Churchill. The connections between Roosevelt and Churchill are numerous and significant. Some doubt remains as to how close their personal friendship was but there is no doubt of their mutual respect as together they and their respective nations faced what once seemed certain defeat by the Axis powers in World War II.

The title of his book is obviously derived from Roosevelt's memorable assertion that "the American people have nothing to fear but fear itself." In fact, of course, there was much to fear as German armies swept across Europe, conquering and then occupying one country after another. It is almost incomprehensible that while still emerging from the Great Depression, the U.S. became fully involved in two different major wars, one in Europe and another in what is generally referred to as "the Pacific." Roosevelt had only recently begun his third term as president when Pearl Harbor was attacked and was dead before World War II ended.

Axelrod suggests a number of lessons about which can be learned from Roosevelt performance as president, observing that "For FDR leadership was practical inspiration or inspired practicality. Take your pick; the two are impossible to separate, and you cannot tell where one leaves off and the other begins." These lessons are arranged according to fourteen different themes which provide the book with its structure. Axelrod explains that the order of the themes "does not reflect the chronology of Roosevelt's life and career, but it is intended to build a coherent picture of FDR as a revealing model of leadership values, ideas, skills, traits, tactics, and strategies. Within each theme, however, the leadership lessons are deployed in chronological order." As is also true of Axelrod's analyses of Elizabeth I and Patton, the material in this book is cleverly organized as well as brilliantly presented. I especially appreciate his selection of appropriate statements by Roosevelt which help to illustrate key points. Here are a four brief excerpts which are representative of Axelrod's thinking and writing.

"A key to Roosevelt's leadership was his genius for seamlessly joining idealism to practical action. For him the perfect piece of legislation, the perfect social program was one in which it was impossible to tell where theory stopped and practice started. They were one." (pages 3-4)

"A leader signals in many ways that he is in touch with those he leads: He acknowledges the needs and concerns of the organization. He acknowledges and praises the achievements of the institution. he demonstrates that he shares the values of the organization. And he ensures that he speaks the language of those he leads." (page 74)

"Leadership of any complex enterprise is rarely a matter of convincing people to 'follow me,' but rather a mission to persuade each individual member of the enterprise that he or she has common cause with every other member. This is an especially difficult mission when times are tough and individual [in italics] survival looms larger than the survival of the collective enterprise." (page 173)

"In any enterprise threat must be recognized. Once acknowledged, it must also be understood that inaction in the face of threat is surrender, not safety. An effective leader always makes the stakes clear. Choosing to fight is dangerous, to be sure, but in many situations opting for the apparently safer course of hunkering down in resolute inaction is simply defeat -- the very consequence one fears in a fight." (page 222)

Those who share my high regard for Axelrod's thoughtful and eloquent book are urged to check out two of his other books as well as Celia Sandys and Jonathan Littman's We Shall Not Fail: The Inspiring Leadership of Winston Churchill, all three previously mentioned. Also Howard E. Gardner's Leading Minds: An Anatomy of Leadership in which he brilliantly examines the unique achievements of Margaret Mead, J. Robert Oppenheimer, Robert Maynard Hutchins, Alfred P. Sloan, Jr., George C. Marshall, Pope John XXIII, Eleanor Roosevelt, Martin Luther King, Jr., Margaret Thatcher, Jean Monnet, and Mahatma Gandhi.

Although I found some of the personality intrigue interesting, the writing was so off-putting at times that it made skimming a virtue. Unfortunately, I cannot take Larrabee seriously as a scholar because of some notable and clearly refutable statements that his admirers are either unaware of, or simply unwilling to acknowledge. A visit to page 83 of the hardcover edition provides ample evidence of sloppiness, untruthfulness, and even vanity -- which of course gets Larrabee into trouble as you will see. When addressing the topic of FDR's foreknowledge of the attack on Pearl Harbor, Larrabee claims "that there is no substantiating evidence whatever." A quick perusal of the reams of interviews with high-level British military and diplomatic sources, agreements between Japan and Germany, intercepted coded messages, and most recently the work of Stinnett (which came after Larrabee's book was published, but which only puts the final dunce cap on Larrabee) make Larrabee's claim absurd. A key objection raised by Larrabee is that Roosevelt, who really would have preferred war with Germany according to Larrabee, would not have provoked Japan into war because there would be no guarantee that Germany would declare war against the U.S. Unfortunately for this argument, Roosevelt was aware of an intercepted diplomatic message between the Japanese ambassador and Von Ribbentrop in which the German foreign minister stated that Germany would join Japan immediately if Japan went to war with the U.S. Furthermore, FDR's cabinet member, Harold Ickes had stated, "For a long time I've believed our best entrance into the war would be [via] Japan...which will inevitably lead to war against Germany." Too many of FDR's defenders raise this same argument -- as if like garlic to a vampire it somehow wards off all questioning of FDR's character or knowledge by means of its devestating effect, which of course is devestating only to those who try to wield it.
Even worse than Larrabee's ignorance is his lack of education -- which, combined with his academic's vanity, deals a serious question mark to his accuracy and perhaps his personal honesty. He resorts to the invalid "argument from authority" or "appealing to the gallery" (choose the fallacy you wish as he seems to rely upon them rather heavily). Again on page 83, after claiming an absolute absense of evidence (and I direct readers to a raft of books on the subject all with plenty of evidence, including Toland, Morgenstern, Beach, and John Denson in addition to Stinnett), he claims that those who claim FDR had foreknowledge of Pearl Harbor are reduced to "arguing that its nonexistence proves the existence of a conspiracy to suppress it. Credo quia absurdum." Not only is this stretching the truth (the part in English), but Larrabee's misquoted and re-constructed Latin phrase is a telling reminder of both his vanity and desperation to impress us with what he wishes were his vast compendium of learning. First of all, the early Christian theologian, Tertullian actually wrote, "Certum est quia impossible est." What I believe happened here is that Larrabee, wishing to pepper his text with something learned beyond the usual phrases such as "modus vivendi," pulled out of his imperfect memory a misquote or else relied upon an inferior source of quotations that was published in English. He then found the phrase, "I believe because it is absurd." This is a commonly encountered mis-translation of Tertullian. But providing the English quote was apparently not sufficient for Larrabee. Wishing to stun us with his vast learning, he attempted to rely upon his (probable) high-school Latin -- which turned out to be a very weak reed indeed -- and made a sorry attempt to do some clumsy Latin composition of his own so that he could use italics lettering in his text. Uh-oh. Mistake. Latin composition requires knowledge, not an amateur or diletante such as Mr. Larrabee. The result? A perceptive reader notices such things and realizes he is dealing with an intellectual lightweight, not a scholar. I wonder if the education institutions with which he was affiliated were ever aware of this streak. If he taught at a university, he must have been insufferable. He certainly isn't among the cognoscenti. Needless to say, things like this cast a pall over the remainder of his book. Ciao!

This is one of the most useful and well written books that I have read on World War II. Larrabee discusses in depth some of the leading American commanders, including: Nimitz, Eisenhower, Lemay, MacArthur, King, Marshall, and Stilwell. His discussion of Vandegrift included a lengthy discussion of Chesty Puller and his exploits on Guadalcanal. Obviously, any discussion of Chesty Puller can be extremely humorous, but Larrabee's anecdotes left me in stitches. I have also read a review on this site alleging that Franklin Roosevelt was aware of the pending attack on Pearl Harbor. The reviewer alleges that based upon the correspondence between the German foreign minister and the Japanese government should have made Roosevelt aware of the attack. My only response is that if German participation was a foregone conclusion, then why did Germany wait until December 11th to declare war? This is an extemely useful overview of the American leaders and the strategy that they employed in World War II. It should be required reading by any American history class studying the 20th century.

If you want a good read on the overall strategy and leadership qualities that these men brought to our country in its finest hour, then take off your shoes and settle into your favorite armchair. The referencing that went into the book is impressive. The facts are stunning. The leadership was impressive.

When people think of President Franklin Roosevelt, espionage and spies are probably not the first things that come to mind. However, during World War II, Roosevelt became very proficient at the spying game. This book delves into Roosevelt's spying. We are also introduced to some of the men who made their living as spies, including "Wild Bill" Donovan and J. Edgar Hoover. I learned a lot about FDR and spying that I didn't know before I read this book. I would recommend it to anyone who is interested in WWII and the espionage aspect of the war.

Joe Persico has discovered what many of us World War Two historians never knew: Franklin Delano Roosevelt PERSONALLY ran the war against Hitler and his state sponsored terrorism! Many of the details in this book I was aware of, but what I did not know was FDR's intense and intellectual direction of the war and all of its participants to include Churchill.
The only error I found here was Persico's declaration that the US breaking of the JN 25 Japanese Naval codes was never discovered. Fact is that when the German Raider Thor intercepted the Australian cargo/passenger ship the SS Nakin, the Germans captured several mail sacks with secret documents reveling the fact the we had broken the Japanese codes on 10 May 1942. The Germans did not tell the Japanese until 29 August of that year, which allowed us to win the Battle of Midway. However, the Japanese changed their codes and we did not re-break them until 5 May 1943. Because of this fact we sustained serious naval losses during the naval battles off Guadalcanal.
For those of you who are not students of intelligence matters concerning the WW-II, I suggest you buy "Encyclopedia of the Second World War" by Bryan Perrett & Ian Hogg as a reference when you are reading Persico's book! Another work I recommend is: "The Encyclopedia of Espionage" by Norman Polmar and Thomas B. Allen (which contains a number of details of George Washington's intelligence network that won the Revolutionary War!
There has only been one other person in American history that did what FDR did: George Washington, whose statue is in the entrance of the Headquarters of the CIA. I think they might consider putting FDR's Statue there as well: AFTER ALL HE DID SAVE WESTERN CIVILIZATION. This book is a MUST READ for all Americans!

What a read! This book has it all over even the most well crafted spy thriller. Intrigue, Spy rings, Spy masters, Intelligence blunders and break throughs. Nonfiction should always be this fun to read.
In "Roosevelts Secret War", we are given insight into a crucial time in American history. Mr. Persico has shown all angles of a diverse and complicated situation. The country is strongly isolationist, the Nazi regime is slowly crushing Europe under its boot heel, and Britain is tied up in skulldugery, decreasing moral and a war that is looking more bleak by the day.
This is the maelstrom FDR is thrust into. The States lag behind The U.K. in terms of intelligence capabilities and world view. Churchill informs FDR of the realities of the war, and thus the U.S. has its die cast. Mr.Persico sends us on a journey of burgeoning intelligence offices, agency squabbling, jealous department heads, code breaking, conspirices and much more.
During this ride the author debunks long bandied rumors, such as the supposed prior knowledge FDR had of the Pearl Harbor tragedy. The answer is surprisingly complicated. Hindsight offers a pretty clear view of a pending attack, yet all the intel that pointed towards that travesty was divested in so many small nuggets, bungled through many channels and ciphers, that not even a room of Nobel winners in physics could have pieced together an obvious plot.
FDR is shown as a very shrewd, intelligent and devious man. Though generally moral, he will bend rules, cast aides against one another and down right lie if the greater good will be advanced by his many prevarications. Churchill is of a similar character, and the two spark up a healthy working partnership. The book is peppered with so many gold nuggets, that a list of all its finds would be to long to list here.
Rich, complex and very well crafted, this may be the best work of Nonfiction published this year.

An interesting fact of American politics - that many of our Presidents came from the "upper class" of American society - is the central premise of "The Three Roosevelts: Patrician Leaders Who Transformed America." In this book, co-authors James MacGregor Burns and Susan Dunn examine the role played in American history by arguably the most influential "patrician" family of the twentieth century - the Roosevelts of New York.

"The Three Roosevelts" is essentially a book containing short political biographies of Theodore, Franklin, and Eleanor Roosevelt. Theodore Roosevelt (TR) became one of our greatest Presidents. Early in life, his sense of "noblesse oblige" caused him to choose a career in politics rather than a life as a member of the wealthy elite. He was elected, in turn, state representative; then governor of New York, as a Republican. He was appointed Assistant Secretary of the Navy in the McKinley Administration. Three years later, he was elected Vice President of the United States, and succeeded to the Presidency when President William McKinley was assassinated on September 14, 1901. His seven years as Chief Executive were some of the most successful of any Chief Executive up to then.

Franklin Delano Roosevelt (FDR) was a young man who appeared to have little of his cousin Theodore's intellectual acumen, driving ambition, or ideological bent. Franklin followed his famous cousin into politics, but unlike his cousin, Franklin became a Democrat. Like Theodore, Franklin's political career advanced steadily. In rapid succession, he was elected State Assemblyman, then State Senator. By age 31, he had been appointed Assistant Secretary of the Navy by President Woodrow Wilson.

In 1921, FDR was stricken with polio, which paralyzed him from the waist down. In 1928, after a seven-year hiatus from politics, FDR was elected Governor of New York. His two two-year terms were highly successful, but by then FDR already had his eyes on the biggest prize of them all: the Presidency.

From 1929 to 1932, during the early years of the Great Depression, FDR proved himself a capable governor of New York. By 1932, after three years mired in the Depression, Americans were ready for a change. They elected FDR - the man promising Americans a "New Deal" - as President of the United States.

The vast majority of "The Three Roosevelts" is taken up with an account of FDR's "transformation of America" during the Great Depression. Here, Burns and Dunn portray Roosevelt as a man employing a pragmatic approach to governance... try whatever works! Congress passed a body of legislation that was tremendous in scope. For the first time, the Federal government actively intervened in American life in an effort to make life better for all. The modern welfare state was born.

The third of the "three Roosevelts" - Eleanor (ER) - was an integral part of her husband's political success. After her marriage to FDR, Eleanor remained indifferent toward politics, although she steadfastly supported her husband's political ambitions. As FDR's political career progressed, so did Eleanor's interest in politics. In fact, she was much more of an ideologue than Franklin. Burns and Dunn imply that Eleanor grew to have a tremendous influence on Franklin, possibly pulling him more and more to the left of center during his Presidency.

On April 12, 1945, after thirteen years as President, years which saw the United States struggle out of Depression and stumble into a world war, Franklin D. Roosevelt died. He had helped build the modern welfare state, and had guided the United States to a position of victory in the Second World War.

In the years following FDR's death, Eleanor Roosevelt continued to be a major influence on American politics. Through her nationally syndicated newspaper column "My Day," ER continually interjected her ideas and opinions into the national debate. She was appointed as an American delegate to the first organizational meeting of the United Nations General Assembly. Later she would serve on a UN commission that authored the Universal Declaration on Human Rights. She championed the cause of equal rights for all Americans, and was vocal in her support of the new nation of Israel.

When "The Three Roosevelts" appeared in bookstores in the spring of 2001, I eagerly bought a copy. This was the first book I'd seen in over twenty years that was written by James MacGregor Burns, the historian best known for his two volume biography of the 32nd President - "Roosevelt: The Lion and the Fox" and "Roosevelt: The Soldier of Freedom."

My hope was that Burns and co-author Susan Dunn would provide a penetrating examination of what caused this trio of extraordinary individuals to leave behind the values and traditions of their 19th century "patrician" class, in favor of a progressive and at times socialistic political agenda. It is a question left largely unanswered. "The Three Roosevelts" remains a book very long on biographical information and very short on historical analysis.

The authors show an almost complete lack of objectivity toward their subjects. Burns is well known as a liberal "New Deal" Democrat, and his political bias shows on practically every page. He is ably abetted by Dunn. The result: "The Three Roosevelts" is practically a paean of praise to TR, ER, and especially FDR. Criticisms of the "three Roosevelts" are few, and even those are largely muted. Burns and Dunn's unabashed, gushing admiration of the "three Roosevelts" is annoying, and limits the usefulness of the book as an objective study of these fascinating characters in American history.

James MacGregor Burns and Susan Dunn, Democrats by conviction, give an unequal account of the life of three Roosevelts by dedicating most of their biography to Franklin Delano Roosevelt. MacGregor Burns and Dunn show their audience how these three patricians left behind a relatively easy life to descend into the arena of politics. Theodore, Franklin and Eleanor Roosevelt had to overcome their prejudices about other classes, religions, ethnicities and races to get an understanding of the issues at hand and, at times make, painful compromises to get things done. MacGregor Burns and Dunn explain to their readers that the three Roosevelts have ultimately left an indelible imprint on the psyche of the nation by each setting an example of transformational leadership. On the domestic front, the country has been working on the best possible reconciliation of the respective interests of business, labor and consumers as well as the rights and duties of its respective races and ethnicities. Abroad, the country has weighed the pros and cons of an interventionist policy on a case-by-case basis to safeguard its vital interests, and to advance the cause of a world that espouses the values of responsible democracy and capitalism.

This novel was immensely informative and entertaining. I am an English teacher who reads a lot, and I could not put it down. I loved the descriptions of leaders such as Huey Long and Gerald Smith and the isolationist movement. It was also impressive that it was so well-balanced and avoided sensationalism and cheap shots. The authors did not take sides or make quick judgments. You must read this book. My two favorite sections were the descriptions of the New Deal and the class struggle in New York during TR's time.

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.

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.

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.

President Franklin Delano Roosevelt proved his mettle in how he dealt with his domestic enemies almost as much as in the way he fought Hitler, Tojo, and Mussolini. As Professor Albert Fried demonstrates in FDR and His Enemies, the homegrown foes were at times the tougher adversaries.

Fried places on FDR's list a formidable cross-section of American enemies: Father Charles Coughlin, the bombastic radio priest; aviator Charles Lindbergh, who morphed from international hero into Nazi dupe; John Lewis, the labor leader who used people as callously as ashtrays; Al Smith, the first Catholic to run for president who became an ardent opponent of the New Deal; and Louisiana hurricane Huey Long, perhaps the most dangerous and brilliant of the five. How FDR responds to each is based on that individual's strengths and weaknesses. Thus, Lindbergh and Coughlin are marginalized by their own words, Smith and Lewis by their own vanity, and the dynamo Long is co-opted as much as he is battled. FDR's deft approach to each proves impressive.

Unfortunately, the book at times is an apologia for FDR's many excesses and shortcomings. As an example, spurious excuses are offered for horrific civil liberty violations such as the president's indiscriminate use of the FBI wiretaps on domestic foes. In this and many other instances Fried betrays the prejudices of academicians of his era. To such men FDR did no wrong, the facts be damned. Also, in keeping with the style of professors of his background, Fried can't resist showing off his impressive vocabulary. Keep a dictionary handy.

Nonetheless, the book remains eminently readable and brings a unique perspective to an earlier president whose superb political skills often exceeded his discretion and intellectual capacity. Fried is at his acidic best when he directly quotes outrages from Lindbergh and Coughlin, and the book shines when the professor chronicles the seemingly benign but always powerful theatrics of Long and Lewis.

One of the better descriptions of FDR was "a man of first-rate temperament". As Fried proves, FDR had first-rate enemies as well.

any way.
FDR, like Lincoln, was loved or hated intensely. There were few people indifferent to them.
With the exception of Lindberg, all of them: Father Coughlin, Huey Long, Al Smith & John Lewis had a love/hate relationship with the president.
In the case of Coughlin, Smith & Lewis, FDR gave them a light touch. They eventually self destructed. They were flawed little demagoges. Long could have really caused some political trouble but was killed early in FDR's presidency.
FDR really seemed intent on bringing Lindberg, already an American icon, down. It was his isolationist views, so persuasive, rather than his Nazi sympathies that concerned the president. When war finally came & Lindberg volunteered, FDR personally intervened & thwarted him.
Some biographers have given Lindberg a pass. They have treaded lightly on his isolationism, his Nazi support & anti semitism. This book is not so kind.
I might never read a biograhy on Coughlin, Smith or Lewis so the information on these three historic figures was valuable to me.
That FDR manipulated The United States into World War II, as the isolationist even today contend, is probably true & the subject of more than a few books. However history exonerates him.
In this case the means truly justifies the ends.

It has been said that we can tell a great deal about a man's character by the enemies He makes, And Franklin Delano Roosevelt had more than His share of enemies.Albert Fried attempts to illustrate FDR's character, political skills and His place in history by evaluating His relationships with five of His most implaccable political enemies, An interesting concept that falls short in some areas. Al Smith was one of Roosevelt's earliest political mentors, FDR probably would never have

become president had Smith not virtually blackmailed Him into running for Governor of New York in 1928.After the election Smith felt He was due some deference which He never got. But to blame their alienation envy and resentment on Smith's part is I believe wrong. By 1932 Smith had moved to the right in His ideology as many do as they get older. I believe that He genuinely believed FDR was moving America towards Marxism.Huey Long was said to be the only politician that FDR genuinely feared.Against all logic the author believes the Kingfish would not have run for Presidentin 1936. I believe that Long would almost certainly have run and thatHe might have thrown the election to the Republicans. As William Manchester once wrote; ''Huey Long is one of the few men of whom it can truly be said that had He lived history would have been different''.The least impressive of the enemies is Father Charles Coughlin, a windbag in a clerical collar. John L. Lewis was a Labor leader with dictatorial ambitions who clearly underestimated Roosevelt's popularity with the workers. Charles Lindbergh was the only one of the five who was not originally a Roosevelt ally.Lindbergh was enormously naive, I don''t think He was a Nazi.Fried says that all of these men were living in the past and could not understand that Roosevelt's policies were the wave of the future. I don''t think that could truly be said of either Long or Lewis. And it begs the question of wheather the ideas of the future are always superior to the ideas of the past. Nevertheless a good book.

We have three dogs in our family--two pitbulls and a cocker spaniel. Kate Decker's "101 Tips for Training YOur Dog" has become our Bible. Her advice has helped us prevent one dog from chewing up the carpet, another dog from constantly vomiting, and another from barking while we're away (and annoying the neighbors). We've love our animals and feel the author shares that feeling. This book taught us a lot about how dogs behave and how they interact with people.

I've just purchased a copy of 101 Training Tips for Your Dog by Kate Delano Condax and frankly I am quite impressed! I want to thank Dell Publishing Company for having the courage to show the American Pit Bull Terrier in its normal setting, as an intelligent family dog, which is a far cry from the media generated monster. I am a dog trainer and the co-author/publisher of two books reflecting the obedient, domestic natural character of the American Pit Bull Terrier. I work with people everyday who have received contradicting advice from a variety of sources and are totally confused. Finally there is a common sense training book with an A to Z format which is easy to follow and understand. While no one method works on every dog, I find 101 Training Tips to be humane and effective and a must for the novice regardless of which breed they own. I am impressed by the author's obvious love for animals and her honest, down to earth approach to training Man's Best Friend. Of a particular usefulness in any book on dog training is information that deals clearly and honestly on ways to correct aggression in dogs. Most training books I've read either avoid the problem of giving accurate training tips that work on aggression or gloss over the subject. For many people the only answer they can see if the dog is aggressive is to have the dog killed. I believe thousands of lives will be saved by this author giving straightforward information to dog owners about curing aggession. I might add, that in addition to American Pit Bull Terriers, which are perhaps the best tempered canine I work with, I also train other dogs and have on occasion, had to correct aggressiveness in a variety of breeds. In my opinion this book is completely on target regarding this subject. The dog on the cover is particularly charming and reminds me of my very first dog "Brownie" who now lives in my heart and memories.

Jillian Cline

I was having many problems with my dogs, aggression, coming when called, jumping up on people, housebreaking etc... This book, 101 Training Tips for Your Dog, is quite clear and to the point and easy to follow, you just turn to the alphabetical listing. It really is a great book and has helped me a lot with my 2 dogs.

Thomas Fleming's work of conservative historical revisionism is valuable and at the same time disturbing. FDR was a highly flawed preson but a great man. It is good to have some conservative balance to the Roosevelt myth. Roosevelt's flaws are documented in this book such as the manipulation a president can do to get America into a war. But that is one the reasons it is disturbing. If FDR can do such manipulation, conservative revisionists should ask can other -more recent (Republican ) presidents do the same type of manipulation ? Roosevelt can be faulted for interment camps and as Fleming does very well documents the presence of Soviet agents such as Hiss in his administration. This reviewer wished there was more liberal (too many right wing attacks without the other side being presented) balance for this book can be used by isolationists for their own ends. If the author's thesis was that WW2 was not a noble cause then that is disturbing. Many antisemites and Hitler apologists make similiar claims. If the author thinks we should have fought Hitler then some balance should be included how Roosevelt 's actions were necessary. The book is well documented but needs more of an objective look in order to claim the mantle of scholarship.Fleming's claims that unconditional surrender caused the war to be extended is not proveable.Also attacking Roosevelt for not disclosing the Holocaust and doing more about it is somewhat fallacious. People on the right (Lindberg) would probably prefer that we didn't fight in WW2 ,so if we listened to the right wing back then the Holocaust would have continued unabated. FDR deserves the crefit for recognizing the evils of naziism .As said previously more objectivety is needed or this book starts to become right wing propaganda.

This book is what we Roosevelt haters have longed for for half a century. No hater of "that man in the White House" and his awful wife could have thought in fantasy half as much as Thomas Fleming demonstrates in fact. This book should be required reading for all liberals, Democrats, and leftists, and for all Jews I would recommend mandatory reading or a period of mandatory community service if they refused! Jews in America think FDR saved them from Hitler. In fact he prolonged Hitler's reign long enough to allow him to finish off the Jews he had not yet begun to kill in massive numbers. Without FDR, as without Woodrow Wilson, the 20th Century would have been less violent and less disastrous.

The underlying conventional belief is that the United States entered WWII as a direct result of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. Thomas Fleming's book "The New Dealers' War" makes a credible argument for the case that the attack on Pearl Harbor was carefully orchestrated by FDR and his interventionist administration to get America into the war. Fleming bases his argument on a number of key points that he painstakingly documents throughout his book. The cornerstone of his argument is based upon the revelation of a document known as Rainbow Five. The document revealed that FDR had plans to create a 10 million man army for the purpose of invading Europe in 1943 and defeating the Nazi war machine. Fleming maintains that the existence of Rainbow Five was deliberately revealed by FDR himself with the intention of having Germany declare war on the United States. At that time, Americans had strong pro-Eruopean sentiments and favored aid to the allies but they stopped short of supporting direct US involvement in the escalating war. The book maintains that FDR lacked the political strength to sway public opinion in support of the war so he masterminded a series of events and policies that resulted in the attack on Pearl Harbor and the eventual declaration of war against the United States by Germany.

Whether or not Roosevelt intentionally manipulated people and events to achieve such a result remains unproven but this book does and exceptional job of examining the political climate of the time. Roosevelt's leadership during the depression is shown to be particularly magnificent. His mentality that traditional government mechanisms were inadequate led to the creation of a series of alphabet soup federal agencies that were designed to intervene in the economic crises. The "New Deal" itself was a balanced mixture of both pragmatism and Idealism. Having the ideology is one thing but implementing these ideas into practical programs required the skills of a master politician such as FDR. The shortcomings of Roosevelt's foreign policy program are magnified and examined in close detail but one comes away with a strong appreciation of the complex circumstances which he faced on the world stage. "The New Dealers' War" certainly provides numerable thought provoking questions that inspire conjecture but it comes across as an excellent work of narrative history.