Those Angry Days: Roosevelt, Lindbergh, and America's Fight Over World War II, 1939-1941

This is an in depth look at the two sides of the issue over whether or not the United States should enter the conflict that would become World War II. Franklin D. Roosevelt and his supporters representing the interventionists and Charles Lindbergh, arguably the second most influential man at this

Show More

time in the U. S., representing the isolationists. Lindbergh wanted nothing to do with the war. He proposed the U. S. should stay out of the war even if it meant all of Europe, including England, were to be taken over by Nazi Germany. His radical views and outspokenness would result in his being branded by many as a Nazi sympathizer and even an anti-Semitic. Roosevelt on the other hand was often labeled a war monger who wanted to throw America's youth into a war on foreign shores. Both men were continually assailed in the court of public opinion, by leading politicians, newspapers, and private citizens all of whom had their own agendas. The book describes the intense political infighting between Roosevelt and Congress, between members of both parties in Congress, and between special interest groups trying to influence both Roosevelt and Congress. You can't help but see the strong similarities to the political power struggles that are currently incapacitating the government today. It is very eye opening to see how various pressure groups and individuals tried to manipulate other people and events to achieve their own goals. This is an excellent companion book to the author's earlier book, Citizens of London: The Americans Who Stood with Britain in Its Darkest, Finest Hour. This book provided for review by Amazon Vine and the well read folks at Random House.

Show Less

This history of America in the years 1939-1941 uses the two outsized personalities of Roosevelt and Lindbergh as exemplars of the isolationism and internationalism in those years. While the story ranged far afield of just those two individuals, it returned to them often to personalize and focus the

Show More

controversy. I felt it was both entertaining and informative.

Show Less

A very well-written history. FDR comes out of this study something of a diddler and politician (in the worst sense of the word) who demonstrated dynamic leadership in his first and last years and was virtually AWOL in the middle years. One thing that changed him was the Congressional rebuke he

Show More

received for his Supreme Court packing initiative. Conversely, Wendell Willkie emerges as a hero--his decision to support the draft and Lend Lease was crucial to getting those bills through Congress. Congress was just as obstructionist then as it is today and the isolationist leaders in the Senate seem like buffoons who belonged in the 19th century rather than the 20th. It was a different country back then, for example, with overt anti-Semitism and racism. The author makes the point that the horrors of the Holocaust made anti-Semitism problematic; there was no such pass for American-Americans. There's much to be learned in this book, and the America that emerges, especially the political leadership, is as lacking and venal as their French and British counterparts during the appeasement years. Also, there were many senior military leaders who were isolationist and fans of Germany. The author makes the point that FDR had to be dragged incrementally toward action rather than leading the nation in the struggle against evil--something he only felt comfortable in doing after Pearl Harbor and the German/Italian declarations of war which followed.

Show Less

Outstanding. Regardless of what you may know or think you know about the topic this will add to your base of knowledge. Balanced analysis of the characters and issues. No one, Lindbergh, FDR is exempt from criticism or duplicity. Good use of anecdotes. First rate scholarship in handling of sources.

Excellent study of the two-year period leading up to Pearl Harbor on Dec 7, 1941. The author follows the progress of American public opinion about the growing conflicts in Europe due to the Nazi expansion and conquest of nations. The main antagonists are FDR and Charles Lindbergh, but the story is

Show More

much wider than those two men. The author excellently details how American isolationist beliefs were an important part of our history as a nation, and how difficult it was to bring out a clear picture of the full threat of Naziism to the world and to America. I really enjoyed reading this book. Olson has also written other histories of the period which I am going to read as well.

Show Less

The difficult path FDR had to take in adopting pro England policies is well developed here. His foes were Lindbergh, the America First Party, and isolationists were his allies. His allies were the Century Club and other groups.

This covers from 39-41, and the contentious issue of whether and how much the US should support Britain against Germany. FDR and interventionist groups are on one side, while Charles Lindbergh and isolationists are on the other. A sad picture of Lindbergh emerges, as he had been pursued by

Show More

reporters for years, and proves to make many unwise decisions. Also, the aftermath of his life is quite surprising, as he fathers many children in Europe.

Also, Anne's life is comparably sad, as she lives in his shadow. The book fills an interesting gap in America's wrestling with its unpreparedness for war, and its desire to avoid it entirely. The book is a good read, but not compelling for me.

Show Less

I have only begun reading this, but I find it is a well-researched and rather coolly objective account of the struggle between isolationists and internationalists in the last years before the US entered World War II, focusing on the ;personal duel between Charles Lindbergh and Franklin Roosevelt.,

Show More

with considerable discussion of British and American propagandists for intervention and their isolationist opponents. It tends to be very sympathetic to Lindbergh's wife Anne, though not so much to Lindbergh himself; It also follows Anne's brother-in-law Aubrey Morgan, one of the leading British propagandists in America. Although it accept that FDR's side was basically "right" it is very aware of his nature as a calculating politician and does not present him along the heroic lines of some of his admirers.

Show Less

In all the rancor of the pre-war politics, I felt like Olson was trying to give the reader a fair telling of the positives and negatives of the pro-war and anti-war factions. Roosevelt was shown as a flawed human, preoccupied with not getting ahead of popular opinion, at times suspicious or

Show More

vindictive. But a charismatic leader who idealized national unity. Lindbergh was shown as driven toward his own ideals, against the national mood and tempering advice. He could not take seriously other opinions divergent from his own, from the nation or from his family. At the end his daughter recognized that he lacked that ability to really listen.

Some things I learned:
* After the court-packing fiasco, Roosevelt was not confident he could lead popular opinion anymore, and he hesitated to push for war, even though he believed in saving Britain. The US could have entered the war far earlier if he had taken the risk and publicly pushed for it.
* Hitler did not want the US in the war until he had a chance to finish off Europe. He had to balance how to advance militarily without alarming America so much that they would engage.
* Many Americans did not like Britain at all, seeing it as an imperialistic belligerent. They equivocated between siding with Britain or Nazi Germany.
* Nazi state persecution against Jews was very well known and not seriously concerning throughout America.
* Republicans were generally anti-war isolationists, but when America finally entered the war they ironically gained congressional seats from the pro-war enthusiasm, because they were seen as the nationalistic party.
* Even after Pearl Harbor, Roosevelt still did not want to engage Germany and only declared war on Japan, to the dismay of Britain. Germany hastily declared war on America, giving Roosevelt the justification to finally jump into Europe directly.
* America's support of Britain led to a number of American casualties and damages inflicted by German forces, the first deaths of the war before we had even officially begun. Even still, Roosevelt avoided using this as a pretense to declare war.
* Politics is always politics. Both sides make a public case while concealing their true intentions. Pro-war incremental actions were presented as regrettably necessary for American self protection, and swearing to never actually engage in the war. Of course they wanted to ease into the war. Anti-war actions were presented as saving American blood and treasure from a distant foreign concern. But they played it up to exaggerated levels (wailing mothers, predictions of financial ruin), and occasionally let pro-German and antisemitic sentiments slip.
* It was learning about the holocaust that made antisemitism unacceptable in America.

Show Less