David M. Kennedy (1)Anmeldelser

M.1.4

I have to say that I'm disappointed in this book. I've read David Kennedy's [b:Freedom from Fear: The American People in Depression and War, 1929-1945|106317|Freedom from Fear The American People in Depression and War, 1929-1945|David M. Kennedy|https://d.gr-assets.com/books/1366907871s/106317.jpg|102483] and thought it was great depiction and analysis of America during the Depression/New Deal era. So I had high hopes for this "part 2." I expected much talk of the "home front" immediately prior to, during, and immediately after WWII. I ended up with some political analysis of America during WWII, but mostly a poor, one-volume history of the conflict focusing on America's role in the Grand Alliance. The fact that Kennedy relies heavily on Morison for much of his Pacific War discussions just adds insult to injury. There's no excuse for a book published in 1999 to not provide a broader analysis. While we do get some insights into FDR and the country, and how the war changed both, it wasn't enough for me. Kennedy even says at the beginning of the biography that WWII literature is extensive, so why didn't he give us more details from more sources in a narrower scope?

Another Oxford History of the US entry, this one covers the Great Depression and World War 2. Those are the decades that fundamentally changed America in a way that will probably never happen again - we have grown too big, too complacent, and though reading through the section on the start of the Depression will have you punching walls in frustration at how little people seem to have learned, it seems like against all odds maybe we have retained a tiny bit about the value of a safety net and the dangers that can result from corruption and poor policy. I wouldn't say that the part about World War 2 is definitive in the same way that McPherson's volume on the Civil War is definitive, but it certainly tries to cover as much as it reasonably can.

NA

A captivating history of the Great Depression and WWII from the United States' perspective. Insightful comments on many of the most controversial aspects of the period.

Freedom from Fear won the 2000 Pulitzer Prize in history. It is a 900 page tome that is essentially two books, The Depression and The War. I decided to read it as a comparison to Amity Schlaes' The Forgotten Man (my review).

As far as The Depression goes, Schlaes' treatment is much deeper and more detailed, including the 1920s context and the personal histories and travels to the USSR of FDR's "braintrust." Kennedy skips or glosses over certain crucial details of the New Deal that Schlae's emphasizes, like the critical Schechter case. However, Kennedy does a good job explaining how the New Deal had to be mostly undone to fight World War II. He also does a better job integrating the important of international events on FDR's decision-making in the later 30's.

Overall, I don't find many contradictions to Schlaes' treatment of FDR and the New Deal, which is remarkable given how much the Left has poo-poohed Schlaes' account. FDR comes across as inexperienced, contradictory, weak in negotiations, and not very literate ("None of his advisers ever knew him to read a book) in both accounts-- quite different from the adoration he receives today. The New Deal was more about more fair redistribution than economic stimulation, which is why the restrictions it put on free enterprise had to be let go to allow businesses to produce the war machine.

FDR's decision to take the U.S. off the gold standard was the greatest economic boost. His sudden determination to raise taxes and reduce the deficit helped cause the 1938 recession for which he almost faced a tough re-election.

Kennedy does a good job giving a play-by-play overview of World War II, including many details revealed by recent research; that's quite laudable. FDR's ill health and failings at Yalta are detailed. Kennedy does a decent job giving some home-front industrial policy and statistics throughout the book, including WWII, but I think fails to capture the sociology of the American people during the War years. He does look at certain aspects, such as internment camps, and the role of women (and their eagerness to get back to homemaking according to multiple surveys-- something that is forgotten about the 1940s by many modern talking heads).

In all, I give this book 4 stars out of 5. It's not great as a detailed account of both periods, but is a very good overview of both.

Amazingly detailed look at the American home front in World War I. Although the detail could bog down a casual reader (otherwise making it 4 stars because of readability issues), that detail is also what makes this book fabulous. The author's ability to tease out complex international connections (for example, American incarnations of socialism) as well as talk about domestic responses to those fears (lynching of German Americans in St. Louis and other locations)--among other political, social, and economic contexts he illuminates for the reader--makes this book exceptional. If you want to really know how Americans fought against joining the war, made the turn for supporting intervention, and how the war affected their daily lives back in the states, you should look no further.

This general history of America in the Depression and WW2 was detailed enough to be informative. I must admit to skimming the actual war years. I found the depression and the build-up to the war to be most interesting.

This book, covering the years 1930-1945, is a worthy entry in the splendid Oxford History of the United States (of which Mr. Kennedy is the current editor). This book is magisterial in scope, and is as balanced as is possible, in a volume covering so many issues that are still highly contentious today. This is not a quick read -- it is an overview of the history of the period, approaching that period from a variety of viewpoints; political, historical, social, and cultural. That adds up to an enormous amount of material, but Mr. Kennedy's vivid prose style and gift for storytelling makes it far more enjoyable that the phrase "historical survey" usually suggests. As to balance, Mr. Kennedy presents his major characters as rounded individuals with good and bad character traits, who made both good and bad choices. I had not realized, for example, that Herbert Hoover's policies in so many ways foreshadowed FDR's, nor had I realized just how scatter-shot the New Deal really was. For those who want to learn more about this period, during which so many of our current political issues find their roots, this book is very strongly recommended.

In "The Ordeal of Franklin Roosevelt," Kennedy tracks the FDR court packing attempt with great skill and grace. In contrast to Brinkley, however, he is less interested in the ways in which the weakening of Roosevelt's power leads to a crisis of confidence in the administration than he is in showing the results of the President's move in the congress and it's broader impact on the Democratic coalition. FDR's "Seven Little TVAs" proposal in the special legislative session in November was met with a "Conservative Manifesto" in which the powerful conservative Southern bloc defied FDR's which Kennedy sees as the birth of the modern Conservative movement.

by the late 1930s the New Deal had begun to alter the scale of federal institutions and extend the reach of federal authority. This emergence of a large, interventionist government, accomplished in an atmosphere of crisis by a series of aggressive presidential initiatives, now began to provoke a powerful though not yet fully coherent conservative counterattack. The crystallization if this new conservative ideology, as much as the New Deal that precipitated its articulation, was among the enduring legacies of the 1930s. (p. 341)

FDR provoked the wrath of powerful Southern Democrats for whom the race issue was paramount. A too strong federal power endangered segregation, especially when that federal government was headed by a Northerner. The battle lines were drawn over the revival of Anti-lynching legislation provoked by the grisly murders in Duck Hill Mississippi. Fears of a new Reconstruction united Southern opposition in the Senate where the bill was withdrawn in the face of Southern Democratic filibuster in February 1938. FDR did little to revive this bill.

The last piece of New Deal legislation which FDR signed in 1938 was the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), which outlawed child labor, set the minimum wage at 40 cents and mandated the forty-hour week. As a concession to powerful Southern interests, this bill had been stripped of its protections for agricultural and domestic workers. Emerging with the minimum wage provision for industry in tact, the bill was seen by the South as a direct attack on the viability of their industry, which relied on cheap labor to remain profitable. FDR, along with a small band of Southern Liberals (including LBJ), saw this a a way to force the South to modernize its industry.

FDR took the Southern strategy even further. He went south to Dixie to campaign for liberals in the congressional elections of that year. FDR did not secure the election of liberals in the South in 38, instead he provoked the wrath of Southern Democrats who branded him a latter day "carpet bagger." In 38, HUAC under Martin Dies investigated communists in labor and in New Deal Programs. The New Deal was clearly under siege. At the height of all this, Harry Hopkins uttered the ill-fated phrase: "We shall tax and tax, and spend and spend, and elect and elect." (p. 349)

Kennedy cover much of the same ground as Brinkley when discussing the ideological debate within the New Deal administration which the economic crisis provoked. The New Dealers may have differed from one another over how the government would solve the crisis, but they all believed that government was the solution and not the problem. Winning the "intense ideological struggle" which Brinkley identified over the soul of the New Deal would not be worth much, since the New Deal was then its death throws. The end of reform came, not as an ideological accommodation but as the acceptance of political reality. Given the conservative opposition, structural reforms were politically impossible. FDR vacillated by pursuing contradictory policies in a half-hearted way. Thurmond Arnold in the anti-trust division and anemic government spending was a far cry to Kennedy's mind from the wholehearted adoption of Keynesianism. Interestingly enough, Keynes was urging FDR to pursue public housing as the spur to a new economic boom. It would be the adoption of this as a veteran's benefit in the post-war years that would fuel the rush to suburbia. For now, however, FDR was a badly weakened leader facing conservative opposition at home while the storm clouds of fascism gathered on the horizon.

"What the New Deal Did" was to provide security at home through the establishment of the modern welfare state. "Into the five years of the New Deal was crowded more social and institutional change than into virtually any comparable time in the nation's past." (p. 363) But the New Deal had a "mongrel intellectual pedigree" and it neither seriously redistributed income nor established government control over industry. The one consistent theme to the mad improvisation of the New Deal was security. According to Kennedy the "pattern could be summarized in one word - security". This security was

security for vulnerable individuals, to be sure, as Roosevelt famously urged in his campaign for the Social Security Act of 1935, but security for capitalists and consumers, for workers and employers, for corporations and farms and homeowners and banks and builders as well. Job security, life cycle security, financial security, market security -- however it might be defined, achieving security was the leitmotif of nearly everything the New Deal attempted. (p. 365)

By initiating financial reform in banking, FDR ensured the further health of capitalism. He separated investment from savings institutions, established the FDIC to ensure bank deposits, and set up the SEC with Joseph Kennedy at its head. Astutely (if ironically) the SEC, with its reporting requirements opened up investment information, broke the power of insiders which in the closed financial world of the 1920s had made rich men of insiders like Joe Kennedy, Sr. FDR also stabilized and regularized the housing market by setting up the FHA. This framework laid the foundation for the post-war housing boom. This regulatory regime was not put in place to destroy capitalism, but rather to strengthen it. The structural changes which the New Deal made to American government from 1933-1938 was a lasting legacy of reform. The New Deal's structural reforms made the post-war boom possible. Though he did not attack racial in-equality head-on (he had neither the temperament nor the political chops to do it), he did set in place the federal regularly state which would make possible the legal gains of the Civil Rights movement. The New Deal was thus a necessary precondition to the rights revolution in the second half of the 20th Century.

There are two things you should know before reading this book. The first is that it is a very thorough history of the period, and as such, a fairly long book that requires a serious commitment. The second is, as other reviewers have noted, there is very little about the people beyond statistics and a few anecdotes. Rather, this is a comprehensive textbook of American history from the Great Depression to the end of World War II, and as such, FDR gets a lot of air time.

That said, it is an excellent history that can serve both as a reference work and a debate-sparker. Certain passages are simply outstanding, such as the Japanese resettlement; a few are boring, such as the two barrages of economic statistics that appear in the early and late parts of the book. Much of the story has been told in many other works; still, Kennedy has to be given credit for writing some of the events in a way that makes them seem fresh and interesting (Pearl Harbor, for instance). There are of course new facts from the research, but what makes the book special is Kennedy's ability to synthesize fact, event and human impulse into valid interpretations of truth.

So, if you are entirely unschooled in the period, this is a must-read. If you have read a great deal of American history, you may find yourself wanting to skip certain passages that reveal little anything you do not already know. I fall into the latter category, but I still enjoyed the book as a masterpiece of a fine historian.½

This volume of the Oxford History of the United States won a Pulitzer Prize in 2000 helping to build the reputation of the series. I have read a number of the volumes in print and I would agree that they are generally high quality history writing. Strangely enough one volume, The Market Revolution: Jacksonian America, 1815-1846 was published by Oxford but replaced in the series by What Hath God Wrought: The Transformation of America, 1815-1848.

This book is a good in-depth survey history of an era that saw great changes in the United States. The author varies narrative history with a cogent analysis of events. 1929 was the end of the roaring twenties. The author gives a short introduction and then begins the book with the crash. America, at the time of the crash, was a country of small towns which had retreated from a brief fling as a major power in World War I. On October 29, the market crashed for good and the American economy went into reverse. By 1930 American unemployment was over 10% and was at that figure when the industrial boom of World War II began. At the end of 1945 America had exploded the atomic bomb and had the biggest industrial economy on the planet amidst a bombed out Europe and Asia. After World War II America displaced the European powers on the world stage, eventually fighting and losing an anti-colonial war in Vietnam. It should be noted that the country quit the military never lost.
The author's portrayal of Herbert Hoover is refreshingly balanced. Herbert Hoover was an intelligent man who made a reputation running the programs that fed Europe after WWI. FDR expanded many of the programs that Hoover started and got the credit for being innovative. Unfortunately both of Hoover's parents were dead by the time he was ten and he was raised in a rural Quaker environment. Hoover didn't have one-tenth the charm and warmth that were some of Roosevelt's greatest attributes. Plus he was poorly served at times. General MacArthur ran the Bonus Army families out of their tent camp with tear gas and Hoover got the blame.
In 1932 Franklin Delano Roosevelt was elected president and the New Deal began. Something was wrong in America and the government was going to fix it. There were several agencies and programs that were a flash in the pan and there were long term programs such as Social Security and the TVA that changed the American way of life. The WPA was made the government the employer of last resort for a period of time and the NRA gave rise to the slogan" The little chicken that killed the blue eagle". That was an often used expression describing the Schecter case where the NRA, a huge economic bureaucracy that set prices, wages and standards was declared unconstitutional. This and other cases like it led to FDR's court-packing plan. He wanted to appoint one Justice to the Supreme Court for every one who was over 70. The failure of that plan in 1937 showed that FDR did have limits to his political power.
World War II in Europe began September 1, 1939 and after the British were driven off the shores of Dunkirk losing all of their equipment Roosevelt began to push the country to the aid of England. The battle between Roosevelt and the isolationists ended on December 7, 1941 and when Germany and Italy declared war on the U. S. on December 11. America fought a tough war in the Pacific while the Russians inflicted 70% of the German casualties. The diplomatic side largely consisted of the relationship between Roosevelt and Churchill. The portrayal of Churchill has little depth. He is primarily portrayed as someone who was a zealous advocate for his country's interest. In describing the Big Three conferences Stalin comes across as a formidable adversary. He was intelligent, knew what he wanted and expected to get it. At the last conference in Teheran FDR was very ill. Stalin agreed to go to war against Japan but insisted on a sphere of interest in Eastern Europe as his price. The Russian military occupation of the area created a fait accompli. In April of 1945 FDR died at Warm Springs, Georgia. He was with his mistress. 24 years before he had promised Eleanor he would leave her. At the end of the book there is some emphasis put on the lack of discussion about the decision to use the atomic bomb. The incendiary bombing of Tokyo killed 90,000 people in 12 to 18 hours. The U.S. had spent billions and worked incredibly hard to produce the atomic bomb as a super weapon to end the war without any further American casualties. In retrospect the horror of the atomic bomb is it's lasting legacy. Sherman said "War is Hell" and this was another action that proved him right.
There is much that I liked about this book. It had a great deal of information and was well written. The index is very useful and the author going against the tide put his notes at the bottom of the page. Unfortunately I did not enjoy the book as much as I would have liked. I felt the author had an elitist approach in deciding who and what was important. The book was more about Roosevelt than the American people. I have grown to like history that makes use of diaries and letters to present the moments of the past in the words of the people who lived them. This author chose to use a different approach. Obviously the Pulitzer Committee agreed with his approach. I do recommend the book. The author gave me some new insights into this era and I will keep it on the shelf for reference.

This is a magnificent work of history and I can't recommend it highly enough! It combines politics, economics, military strategy, social issues, and insights into character into a highly readable, occasionally stunningly written, nearly 900 pages. I learned a tremendous amount I didn't know before from it, and found it particularly interesting to find out how some people whose names became well known got their start and what they really did, as well as to gain greater understanding of how the origins of the cold war lay in World War II. Do not be daunted by its length!

Kennedy, David M., Freedom From Fear: The American People in the Depression and War, 1929-1945, New York, Oxford University Press: 1999

In Freedom From Fear, David M. Kennedy outlines the events that create a fundamental shift in American ideology through the Great Depression and World War II eras. Thematically divided between these two connected eras, Freedom From Fear examines reform measures in both eras to illustrate the shift in American philosophy from a Laissez Faire and isolationist mentality to a protected worker and internationalist outlook. Thus Kennedy also marks these two eras as a bridge between pre-Depression America and post-World War II (or modern) America. However, the strongest thematic element in the synthesis is Roosevelt’s own crusade to secure America against internal and external fears - against labor unrest and insecurity and isolationism.
The first twelve chapters cover the Depression era and the triumph and trials of Roosevelt’s first two administrations. Roosevelt sounds the tone of his administration when he admonishes Americans, through the new medium of radio, that the “only thing we have to fear is fear itself (page 134).” The people were not at fault but rather the “money changers” had lead America astray. Having established the common troubles leading to the current crisis, Roosevelt continued by announcing the solution to the problems: more government oversight.
To this end, Roosevelt redefined America’s definition of security. In simpler times, American security rested on the “interdependence of each other and families within a small community (page 245).” However, the changing and growing communities, lead by organized industry, had undermined those values, making it less possible for that security to be attained by everyone. Roosevelt felt “compelled” to use National government to ensure the security and welfare of the individuals of the nation. Drawing upon the tenets of the Founding Fathers, Roosevelt linked his reform to the ideology of “promoting the general welfare” as promised in the Constitution. Roosevelt placed “security of the men, women, and children of the Nation first (page 246).” The various New Deal programs aimed to carry out his mandate. Roosevelt’s legacy in domestic security was the change wrought by government oversight in many areas but chiefly in the financial world that brought security to “capitalists and consumers (page 365).”
The remaining ten chapters of the book encompassed the Second World War and Roosevelt’s remaining two administrations. Kennedy illustrated how the Great War had neither “extinguished ambitions that ignited the war nor quieted the anxieties it had spawned.” Other world leaders reactions to those two factors pushed the world into the next war. Roosevelt guided the United States’ interests in a neutral mode while continuing to remain true to his own themes from the Depression era concerning freedom from fear. Roosevelt cloaked his policy in the mantle of what he called the four freedoms: “freedom of speech and religion, and freedom from want and from fear (page 469).”
Roosevelt’s war policies offered a jumble of results. He moved America toward an internationalist policy and towards less domestic discrimination but also introduced some domestic fears during the war. On the domestic front, Japanese American interment in containing camps was a gross abridgement of freedom from fear. Contrasted to Roosevelt’s executive Order 1808 demarking a non-discrimination policy towards people of color (among other things), it is hard to see a more drastic abuse of the very issues Roosevelt was trying to address. In his last inaugural address, Roosevelt defined America’s new anti-isolationist policy. Stating that Americans must “live as men and not as ostriches,” Roosevelt further admonished the American public that there can be “no lasting peace” if that peace is approached with “suspicion and mistrust – or with fear.” In essence, Roosevelt extended his ideals of democratic security to the world.

3285. Freedom From Fear: The American People in Depression and War, 1929-1945. by David M. Kennedy (read Jan 17, 2000) This is a volume in the emerging Oxford History of the U.S. and I found it a superlative reading experience. I thought the account of the Depression and the New Deal well-balanced, meaning it was less pro-Roosevelt than I am, but I think it is accurate. The account of the War I found really catching and most satisfying reading. This was undoubtedly the most enjoyable reading I did this month, and saying that takes nothing away from other things I read.

3746. Over Here: The First World War and American Society, by David M. Kennedy (read 18 May 2003) It was Jan 17, 2000 when I read this author's very great prize-winning book, Freedom from Fear: The American Republic in Depression and War 1929-1945. So when I saw this 1980 book of his I wanted to read it. Though there were a few dull chapters, much of the book is of high interest, full of interesting points (e.g., pointing out how things might have been different if Sen. Paul Husting of Wisconsin had not been killed in a hunting accident in October 1917 and the Senate in 1919 had been under Democratic control). Not the tour de force that Freedom from Fear is, but still a good book with much good information in it.

I'm currently reading this so I'm not completely done with it. However, I absolutely love this book thus far. David M. Kennedy is an amazing writer (as seen in his book Freedom From Fear). This book is much smaller than the Freedom From Fear book but no less important. I highly recommend this to anyone interested in the topic.

This book is HUGE but a great read. It won the Pulitizer Prize and it is obvious why. Not only is it thoroughly researched but it is an easy read. The author's writing flows and he really brings the period to life. It is a long book, almost a thousand pages, but it is an important addition to the historiography of this period.

I highly recommend this for historians, history buffs, and anyone else.