The Appeasers

by

 Martin Gilbert and Richard Gott

My thoughts

Richard J. Garfunkel

May 30, 2006

I just finished your most interesting and seminal work The Appeasers, written withRichard Gott. I found it an incredibly detailed account of that sordid period in both European and British history. Of course for our generation (some maintain interest in that period, I was born on the 2^nd of May in 1945) it still remains quite important. For the millions of other “baby-boomers” that followed it is almost ancient history. Today’s generation has almost no knowledge of World War II and even less, if possible, of the machinations that led to that most horrible conflagration. I will be doing a lecture at my old high school this Friday on my paper regarding FDR and MacArthur, and from my past experiences over the last 13 years few high school seniors (these are Advance Placement students) have any knowledge or interest in that period. To them, “history” is dead and the genesis of “appeasement” as a prelude to World War II is an arcane subject.

To me though, it is quite interesting, but not surprising how the rise of Nazism in Germany and its nominal acceptance and toleration in European circles was abated and nurtured by anti-Semitism. In a sense it was highlighted, as you noted, when Lord Londonderry (The Marquess of Londonderry, Charles Stewart Stuart 1878-1949, last post Secretary of State for Air 1931-5), a former British Minister for Air, wrote to Joachim von Ribbentrop (1893-1946, German Foreign Minister, hanged at Nuremburg) in 1936, and said “As I told you, I have no great affection for the Jews. It is possible to trace their participation in most of the International disturbances which have created so much havoc in different countries.”

Of course anti-Semitism was “mother’s milk” to most in Europe, especially the Slavic and Eastern States carved out of the old Austro-Hungarian Empire. These older states were either Catholic or Eastern Orthodox and they were certainly not as tolerant as the more modern leaning and thinking northern European countries. It seems to me that as you trace this legitimization of the Nazi regime, the argument that comes mostly to the surface is that anti-Communism and the abject hatred of Soviet Russia, anti-Semitism, and the fear of a new World War fueled “appeasement.” The acceptance of this “new world order” to counter balance Communism and International Jewry seemed much more palatable to Western Europe than the long-term threat of Hitlerism.

Of course Hitler’s efforts to conclude a “Concordat,” with its author, Eugenio Pacelli, who had worked on it for decades, and was the then Vatican Secretary of State, the former Papal Ambassador to Germany and eventually the new Pope, Pius XII (1876-1958, Pope 1939-58), indicates his (Hitler’s) desire for legitimacy and therefore a smoother path towards recognition and acceptance. The “Concordat” treaty with the Vatican, that allowed Catholic schools, in Germany, to be on an equal political and financial footing with Lutheran schools, and virtually ended the role of independent liberal-minded German Catholic clergy in the political process, served as a strong tradeoff for Hitler. With the Anschluss with Austria in 1938, eight million more Catholics were absorbed into the greater Reich and swelled their (Catholic) minority from 25% to almost 33% of the new Germany’s population. This agreement smoothed the path for Catholics with their innate fear and loathing of “G-dless” communism to play a strong part in Hitler’s future plans. Eventually Catholics would be disproportionably represented in higher numbers in both Nazi and SS leadership roles and its membership numbers.

As you noted, people in responsible policy-making roles in government, never read Adolph Hitler’s (1889-1945), Chancellor, and Dictator 1933-45) Mein Kampf, (1923)but were willing to rationalize Hitler’s real aims. Many believed, whether sincerely or not, that Hitler was more moderate than his peers. Maybe after “The Night of the Long Knives” when on June 30, 1934, Hitler directed his people to murder Ernst Rohm (1887-1934) along with the leadership of his SA-Reichwehr quasi-military organization, gullible Europeans would perceive this as a progressive “cleansing” of the real Nazi extremists. How wrong they were. In retrospect we know that Germany never would have advanced in its historically vile direction without the visionary initiation, the demonic leadership and the hypnotic power of Hitler. Obviously if there was any moderate aspect of National Socialism, Hitler did not nurture it. Without much of an imagination, if Hitler had been one of the ones who were killed during the abortive Munich Beer Putsch, the direction of the world would have been profoundly different. Even after the successes in Poland, some German General staff officers were considering the removal of Hitler and an end to the war through negotiation and abject compromise.

You point out so effectively, that people like Horace Rumbold (1866-1941, last post, Ambassador to Berlin) and Robert Vansittart (1881-1957 Foreign Office 1930-41), whose names are lost to history, seemed to have understood the reality regarding the rise of Nazism, but were so marginalized and dispensed with that their anti-Nazi protests went virtually unheard.  What is so fascinating, and you explain it in great detail, that there is a so-called “desire” to be fair to Germany and even when it is constantly challenged and ameliorated by German actions, it still proceeds on its own course, by and with, the political support of Chamberlain (Neville Chamberlain (1869-1940, Prime Minister 1937-40), Baldwin (Stanley Baldwin, 1867-1947 Prime Minister, 1923-4, 1935-7) and most of the top leadership charting Great Britain future from 1933 to 1939. The Cliveden Set, which was sponsored and nurtured by the American-born, and Francophobe Nancy Astor (1879-1964, first women MP, Unionist 1919-1945) seemed to be the greatest sponsor of appeasement, and many of their “fellow travelers” were people with familiar names like Lords Halifax (Edward Lindley Wood, 1881-1959, Foreign Secretary 1938-40,Ambassador to the US 1941-6) and Lothian (1882-1940 Ambassador to US 1939-40), Sir Thomas Moore (1886-1971), Sir Arnold Wilson and Sir Horace Wilson (1882-1972 Chief Industrial Advisor to the Government 1930-39). But is it fairness due Germany over the supposedly oppressive features of the Versailles Treaty? Most people understand the innate rationalization of “to the victor belong the spoils.” No peace treaty, by the victor upon the loser, is perfect and the tendency to lean towards draconian-style conditions is more historically prevalent than not. So British “guilt” over the “treaty” is really hard to digest. Certainly the Germans wanted redress of their so-called grievance. What else would any country want? Certainly Hitler won popular support from the masses with his promises to reverse the conditions of the Treaty of Versailles. But, all in all, his actions, which included re-armament of Germany, personal bellicosity, state-sponsored internal terrorism, were basically successful because of his ability to bluff. 

The fact that Europeans, aided and abetted by the British, were willing to visit Germany and literally grovel to Hitler his sycophants reflects the cynicism and bankruptcy of their vision and sense of reality. Was it their greed in mortgaging the future, cowardice, or genuine fear of war that that lead them to this climate of “satiating the beast?” As negotiations proceeded with Hitler and his demands became more strident, it became obvious that the lives of millions could and would be traded away with impunity. The fact that all of these so-called democratic “imperialists” could look at the African continent as their own “feeding trough” is amazing, but true. And on top of that imperial arrogance, they were looking for ways to “buy-off” Hitler’s appetite for European lebensraum (living space) with a piece of colonial Africa. Britain, in its desire to keep all of the former German African colonies that it acquired after WW I, attempts even to force the Belgians and Dutch to surrender parts of their own empires. But are the Europeans really listening? Hitler tells them that he not only wants Germany’s former colonies back so he can compete economically in Europe, but he wants unification of all European Germans and new areas to settle his growing population. Where is that land going to come from? Well are the Europeans being blind?

Of course in the same way that Winston Churchill (1874-1965, PM 1940-5, 1951-55, Nobel Prize for Literature, 1953) Anthony Eden (1897-1977 Foreign secretary 1935-8 resigned in protest, Foreign Office 1940-45) Duff Cooper (1890-1954 First Lord of the Admiralty 1937-8 resigned after Munich), Josiah Wedgwood (1872-1943, great, great grandson of the potter Josiah Wedgwood) and a few others protested this national insanity, a different style of “appeasement” was going on here in the United States. People of every rank, political party and creed made up the isolationist movement in the United States, most formerly backed by the American First Committee. As Arthur Schlesinger Jr. (1917-current, Pulitzer Prize, 1945) points out in his book, A Life in the 20^th Century, “In the spring of 1940, Stuart (R. Douglas Stuart, Jr. a Yale Law student, the scion of the Quaker Oats family, and American First Committee’s founder) joined with Gerald Ford, later of the White House, and Potter Stewart, later of the Supreme Court, to circulate a petition that concluded starkly: ‘We demand that Congress refrain from war, even if England is on the verge of defeat.’ Other Yale students joining the cause were Kingman Brewster Jr., later President of Yale, and Ambassador to Great Britain, R. Sargent Shriver, later of the Peace Corps and the War on Poverty, and Jonathan Bingham, later a liberal Democratic Congressman from New York. Among other inherents were Chester Bowles, Willard Wirtz, and Richard M. Bissell, Jr. Among younger adherents was Gore Vidal, who organized the America First cell at Exeter.” The American First movement cut across many cultural and philosophical lines from traditional Republicans to socialists and even Trotskyites.

As late as the last Gallup Poll of December 1941, published right before the attack on Pearl Harbor, over 90% of Americans were opposed to going to war to save Britain. This view was certainly shaped by the strength and intellectually driven American First Committee. Schlesinger writes that, Charles Lindburgh (1902-1974, aviator –isolationist and apologist for the Nazis), “…this best American hero opposed aid to great Britain, now standing alone against Hitler, argued that white people, instead of fighting one or another, must unite to resist the onslaught of the Asiatic hordes.” Eventually the “peace rallies” were attracting all sorts of people and speakers like Burton K. Wheeler (1882-1975, US Senator, MT, 1923-47), Norman Thomas (1884-1968, Socialist Candidate for President) John T. Flynn (1882-1964 anti FDR neocon). Every time the name of Lindburgh was mentioned the crowds would go wild in delirium. At one such rally in Boston Ms. Alice Roosevelt Longworth (1884-1980, daughter of Theodore Roosevelt) sat prominently on the platform with Mrs. Robert A. Taft and with many other political and social dignitaries. Of course this is what President Roosevelt (1882-1945, President 1933-45) had to deal with on a daily basis.

Eventually in September of 1941 as Lindbergh ranted and raved around the country, his rhetoric became much more charged. In a speech in Des Moines he charged, “three groups were driving the United States into war: the New Dealers, the British and the Jews.” He became specific: “Instead of agitating for war, the Jewish groups in this country should be opposing it in every possible way, for they will be among the first to feel its consequences…Their greatest danger to this country lies in their ownership and influence in our motion pictures, our press, our radio, and our government.” Basically Lindbergh was not only singling out the Jews for protesting German crimes and aggressions, but he was threatening them with the potential of punitive action in the future. He was saying that the Jewish position in the media (the old canard that the Jews control the news!) would be at risk and potentially altered by some future government.

So despite the war, the naked aggression of Germany and its Nazi leadership, the threat to the survival of Europe and the beginning of the Holocaust, Americans cherished isolationism as a way of protecting itself. Let us not fight until we “see the whites of the eyes!” But here the national view was thankfully being shaped carefully by FDR in his famous Four Freedom’s State of the Union address. In that famous address he was able to articulate his future views that would be eventually incorporated in the Atlantic Charter, which he co-signed with Winston Churchill in their meeting in Argentia Bay.

The British “appeasers” of the thirties seemed no different, except that Hitler was located quite near their neighborhood. They were willing to see large tracts of land and their indigenous peoples forcefully fed into the insatiable appetite of the Nazis. Of course, even with their large armies and navies, the Western powers of Britain and France could not agree on a joint course of action. Therefore the peaceful abandonment of the Sudetenland was actuated which led eventually to the destruction of democratic Czechoslovakia, the undermining of Lithuanian control of Memel and its eventual occupation, and the demand for the return of Danzig. Eventually East Prussia and the Polish Corridor would be new bargaining chips placed on the negotiating table that was established by precedent at Munich. German demands for the reunification of East Prussia would finally precipitate the final European crisis that brought on war. Certainly the fact that there were many Jews in both Memel and Czechoslovakia did not engage the sympathy of the British. The French, with their more left leaning government and their connections to Russia, seemed to be more negative towards German bellicosity but felt only a unified stand with the British would be affective against Nazi Germany.

Ironically as you point out so well, the “Appeasers” were still at work even after the fall of Poland. According to Halifax, peace still had a chance and he was still looking for ways to appease the Germans. Accordingly Halifax listed certain conditions that they could live with:

a)      Poland was to be reconstituted as an independent state with its eastern border the same as in 1914 and the western border as it was in September of 1939. (This seems to ignore the reality that the Soviet Union occupied half of Poland.)

b)      Czechia was to be given a government of her own under German control and to remain part of Germany’s military sphere.

c)      The former African and I assume Pacific colonies were to be returned (Would Japan relinquish their League Mandates?)

d)      An alliance between European belligerents, plus Spain and Italy would guarantee the peace. Russia was to be omitted from the alliance.

Of course as you note, while Lord Halifax was “dreaming” and as Chamberlain was delaying any real action, the Germans were moving into Norway and the Low Countries. At this was all happening, you quoted the MP Leo Amery (1873-1955, MP and Secretary of State for India and Burma 1940-5), an adamant foe of appeasement, who during a debate in the Commons, on May 7, and 8, 1940, indicated, “enough was enough. The defeatism of Chamberlain’s government must be brought to an end, or the war would be lost, by defeat, or by the humiliation of a compromise peace.” You write that “Amery goes on to quote Oliver Cromwell, as he said to the Long Parliament when he thought it was no longer fit to conduct the affairs of the nation: ‘You have sat too long for any good you have been doing. Depart I say, and let us have done with you. In the name of G-d, go!’”

Of course Chamberlain did not go automatically, and when the reality of the German advance in the West was not going to end, the need for a coalition government was paramount. The war that the “Appeasers” wanted to avoid at all costs was, not now in a far off place, it was knocking on their door. The Labour Party would not join a coalition government headed by Chamberlain and he therefore was forced to resign. But the “Appeasers” did not really disappear and many were rewarded with other posts. Lord Halifax was even made Ambassador to the United States!

Of course this marvelous book answered all of my questions about Chamberlain. I had originally been looking for the exact language and circumstances that brought about the end of the Chamberlain government and on page 351 I found it.

Personally I was looking for a metaphor regarding how a new 2007 Congress would deal with the wartime failures of George W. Bush. Obviously the circumstances, conditions and eras are diametrically different. But maybe the new “Appeasers” are the group of Republican sycophants that have supported almost every one of Bush’s bankrupt and incompetent policies. Of course Bush can remain for two and half more years. But a new Congress can bring new direction to our country.

In the same way that you wrote of Cromwell referring to his army being beaten by the Cavaliers and Prince Rupert’s cavalry 300 years earlier, to the failures that were besetting Britain and would culminate with the disaster at Dunkerque in 1940, we are now experiencing another debilitating war of attrition in the quagmire of Iraq. The history of this current conflict is yet to be written, but for sure fighting it “on the cheap” has not worked, putting in unlimited troops seems not to be an option, and pulling out could possibly make it really much worse.

Regards, and thanks for leading me to the “right” answer,

Richard J. Garfunkel

(Amended and annotated version)

The Appeasers- Phoenix Press 1963

FDR and Churchill

Their Political and Military Legacy

By

Richard J. Garfunkel

May 30, 2006

With regards to Winston Churchill, the political role of the American system is much different then Britain. Churchill never had to really stand for election as leader and was never really trusted with “domestic” responsibilities. He was much more of a “loose cannon” and never really felt comfortable working with others. He was certainly a fabulous talent, but had too many inner doubts to be completely confident with himself. His “black” moods and depression limited his ability to have the confidence to “rule.” He had too many opinions that limited his ability to make political alliances. He was a man of action and not a calculating “planner.” He never understood the need to build organization of political support. He was basically a talented loner. His forte was more foreign policy and the Empire. He had cabinet level domestic responsibilities early in his career, but his name and fortune was linked with the navy when he was First Lord of the Admiralty. Of course because Britain was primarily a naval power since the time of Drake and through Nelson and had dominated the seas, the post of First Lord of the Admiralty had great cachet.

He was not willing to sublimate himself to the will of others and never could pose as a team player. Later on, after the WWII victory he wasn't prepared for the 1945 elections that swamped him and his government. His campaign was inadequate and he did not have a “clue” of what the public was thinking about regarding its needs. On one hand he was still a captive of the upper classes that dominated British life. He seemed unaware and unconcerned regarding how the MacDonald-Baldwin-Chamberlain governments ignored the working classes that suffered throughout the Depression. Of course British politics were divided between the “plutocrats” and the “aristocrats” and Churchill never seemed to know where he fit. He was not keen on real reform that would have worked to restructure the critically unbalanced British economic and social landscape along with its infrastructure.  He never understood the moribund future and moral bankruptcy of colonialism and his attitude towards India was foolish and archaic. His political philosophy was inconstant and vacillating. Both sides of the British ideological divide constantly mistrusted him. He was not able to dominate either party and was perceived by the public as a political outsider with no place to “hang his hat.” His strategy as First Lord of the Admiralty, in the First World War, was badly criticized after the disaster of Gallipoli. His “snafu” was actuated more by logistical insanity then strategic miscalculation. All in all it was a costly failure in blood and material, and therefore his career suffered terribly. With regards to WW II his strategy was basically no better then Chamberlain's. Under his watch the British experienced disasters with the navy in Norway, the 8th Army in North Africa and its collapse at Tobruk, the insane and huge defeat and disaster in Singapore, (the worst and most costly British defeat in history), the disaster at Dunkerque, the catastrophic losses of the HMS Repulse and Prince of Wales off Hainan Island, near the Chinese mainland, the abandonment of Greece and Crete, the ill-fated attack at Dieppe, the alienation of the French and the subsequent defection of the French fleet causing the need for it to be crippled by British naval action along with many others. He was lucky that the Nazis re-directed the Luftwaffe to bomb British cities and not go after their radar early warning stations, their aerodromes and the British fighter defense. A smartly delivered strategy against these targets would have reduced the British to a position where their air cover became hopeless.  

Basically US Lend-Lease, the US Navy and the convoy system, the undeclared US naval war in the North Atlantic against the Nazi submarine wolf packs and the attacks by Germany on Yugoslavia and Greece, culminating with the postponed late spring, early summer invasion of Russia helped Britain survive. Churchill’s strong vocal leadership rallied Britain and the free world, but without Roosevelt and the power that he formulated by creating the “Arsenal of Democracy,” Britain would have eventually been beaten despite the flawed Hitlerian strategy. If the US had not helped Britain with our fleet, the fifty destroyer exchange and Lend-Lease for Russia, the Soviets probably would have been neutralized and the further European resistance would have ceased. Greece and Yugoslavia were basically beaten, and the rest of the Eastern Europe, Hungary, Bulgaria and Romania were German allies. Turkey was in Germany's camp and would have remained an associated “player” looking to reclaim their former Ottoman Empire.  

Churchill did have many successes aside from American help. Their victory at Taranto that devastated the Italian fleet, the sinking of the Graf Spee, the hunting down of the Bismarck, the destruction of the 10 German destroyers off Norway, his policy supporting Orde Wingate and the Chindits in Burma, his mobilizing massive bombing raids over Germany, the destruction of the French dry docks at Saint Nazaire, and his selection of Montgomery to head the British 8th along with his subsequent victory at El Alemain were strong plusses. But even with the entrance of America into the war, later British strategy with Churchill's blessing and interference led to the huge loses in Holland with the ill-fated Market-Garden assault on the Dutch bridges. Montgomery, Churchill's greatest choice for leadership squandered his opportunity to cross the Rhine and was trumped by the American capture of the Ludendorf Bridge at Remagen. That single event of intrepid work by American forces dealt a huge blow to German resistance on the Western front. While Montgomery was accumulating landing craft, the US Army was surging over the Rhine with men and armor, creating an unassailable bridgehead, and trapping German forces on the wrong side of the River. 

FDR, on the other hand mobilized the American economy in an unprecedented way, fought an effective two ocean war, selected and appointed excellent overall leadership with his Joint Chiefs lead by Admiral Leahy, who coordinated the activities of Generals Marshall and Arnold along with Admiral King. FDR's selections, in all of the theaters of his responsibility of MacAthur, Nimitz, Eisenhower, reflected excellent carefully thought out judgment. Their choices of subordinates that included Bedell-Smith, Clark, Bradley, Patton, Hodges, Simpson, Eaker, Doolittle, Stillwell, Halsey, Spruance, Vandergrift, Smith, Lemay and many others spelled eventual success. His speeches, and cool leadership gave the people confidence after Pearl Harbor and the loss of the Philippines. FDR's leadership of the wartime conferences at Argentia Bay, Quebec, Casablanca, Teheran and Yalta were the driving force behind victory and the post-war dominance of the West. His sponsoring of the Bretton Woods Conference had the most lasting effect on the future world's economies vis-à-vis monetary stability. All in all FDR's domestic leadership before and during the war were unprecedented. The late President, the architect of victory, won a hard earned election in 1944, with excellent majorities in Congress, even with his health suffering from advance heart disease and arterial sclerosis. He was able to maintain his majorities in Congress all through his tenure in office, and even though the Democrats narrowly lost Congress in 1946, they quickly recovered their majorities until the Eisenhower landslide of 1952. But from 1954 until the 1980's the FDR-New Deal coalition of Democrats maintained Congressional hegemony. 

Churchill, as a man, was bold, talented and basically remarkable. He was a brilliant speaker, a marvelous writer, a brave soldier, a reporter, a painter, a magnificent Parliamentarian, a cabinet official, a Prime Minister, and most importantly a beloved wartime leader. He embodied what was great about Britain. But he was a failure as a politician, lacked excellent judgment went it came to strategy and suffered from great insecurities. His terrible childhood and education plagued him with self-doubts, depression and lack of direction. Churchill spent a lifetime comparing himself to his father Randolph who had a meteoric political career but eventually became a miserable failure. Churchill like Roosevelt became much more a product of his mother. Overall he was able to overcome all of those limitations. Churchill was still, at heart, part of the “ruling class” that dominated Britain. He was still part of the Imperialist mindset, and he was still sadly lacking, with regards, to what the average “Brit” needed. He never built a political base, and when the post-war choices were made he was cast aside with little regret from the British people. His return to office in 1951 was no great success and he was too, too old to be a major factor in re-shaping Britain after years of war and social reform. 

FDR was not the writer that Churchill was, but as an orator he was certainly in his league. He was determined and self-confident. His childhood was one of nurtured success and happiness. He was beloved by his adoring parents.  He was self-educated to age fourteen and went on to the best schools where he achieved moderate success. In a dissimilar way FDR’s father, whom he adored and respected, died when he was eighteen while he was a freshman at Harvard. Unlike Churchill’s father who was much younger, James Roosevelt was intimately interested in his second son. His first son, a product of his earlier marriage to Rebecca Howland, who died, was 29 years older and his contact with him was not well known. But even with his loss, FDR had looked up to his father and respected his judgment and memory. James Roosevelt was not a politician like Randolph Churchill, and with his death FDR was able to transform his need for a psychological mentor to his 5^th cousin Theodore Roosevelt. 

Unlike Churchill, FDR was the single greatest elected politician in modern history and was able to overcome the devastating physical challenge of Polio. He was a vigorous man who overcame a lifetime of sickness. He had wonderful mentors, Theodore Roosevelt, Al Smith and Woodrow Wilson. He took something from all of them, and was smart enough to avoid the problems they all experienced. He shaped his own destiny, built the Democratic Party, reversed the Depression, rallied the public, instilled great respect from the world at large, inspired great enemies and opposition, took on the Fascists when America wanted no part of that fight, created the United Nations, built the “Arsenal of Democracy” and through his actions, at the Atlantic Conference in Argentia Bay, put forth his vision of the world based on the “Four Freedoms.” His vision is the vision of the modern world; his vision is of one of the world community pulling together for the common good. Not unlike Churchill, who was one of the lone voices protesting against “appeasement,” FDR had withstand an “American First” isolationism that cut across almost all social and political barriers and subgroups. FDR had to use his unequalled mastery of the America political landscape to on one hand re-arm America and on the other hand battle the limitations of our Neutrality Laws and the passion of people like Charles Lindbergh, who were his most vocal critics.

In retrospect Churchill really left no governmental legacy. He really never governed. FDR's legacy was one of not only unprecedented leadership, but of government innovation, reform and restructuring. Both have great-unequalled places in the history of our world and our time.

The Jon Breen Fund

Mount Vernon High School

100 California Road

Mount Vernon, NY 10552

May 24, 2006

Dear friends and fellow classmates,

Greetings: from spring-like Tarrytown that overlooks the majestic Hudson River. This spring and letter marks the thirteenth edition of the Jon Breen Fund, which has attempted to accomplish some simple tasks. The first of these tasks was to perpetuate the name and memory of Jon Breen, a good personal friend to many of us and a great contributor to the overall success of our class of 1963. In the last few months I have been making contact with Patti Nash Ballantine, who lives in Texas and is a member of the AB Davis Class of 1955, Linda Young Shapiro (her brother was the late Howard Young) and Mona Donner Schlossberg, members of the Davis Class of 1956, who had their 50^th reunion on April 29^th. Their website www.abdavisreunion1956.com is a joy to see. I was asked to contribute some of my essays on Mount Vernon to its “share a memory” section and I have. You can see all of my musings at http://rjgpublicthoughts.com. But, through that website I have made some wonderful connections with another group on Hilltoppers and they have shared a great many pleasant thoughts and recollections with me about their lives and families. I would like to see one of our classmates put together the same effort for our upcoming 45^th and 50^th reunions.

The second of these tasks that the Jon Breen Fund has allowed me, is the forum to reach out to young people, find out what is on their minds, and try to impart on them my experiences and perspectives. Through our public policy essays, of which there have been close to 2000, I have learned a lot about what these young people are thinking. As much as the times have changed, human nature stays relatively the same. People want a secure and normal life for themselves and their progeny. Most people, regardless of race, creed or national origin want to contribute to society, make a decent living and provide for their loved ones. Where has that been said before? Accordingly this year’s essay will focus on the problems of illegal immigration and its positive and negative impact. Not ironically Mount Vernon today is the home of many immigrants. They come from almost every part of the world. In our day, the children and grandchildren of immigrants from an earlier generation dominated our class, but some were most recently from Nazi oppressed Germany in the 1930’s, war-torn Europe in the early 1940’s and Hungary in 1956. Of course the late President Franklin Delano Roosevelt said, at Constitution Hall, on April 21, 1938, when addressing the Daughters of the American Revolution, I quote, “ Remember always, that all of us, and you and I especially, are descended from immigrants and revolutionists…” Many were not happy to be so reminded.

Thankfully the winter had been mild and therefore all of our heating bills, in spite of the oil spike, have been almost tolerable. It will be quite interesting next November to see how the electorate will view the ongoing morass in Iraq, the problems of “open” borders, the price of gasoline at the pump, and the continued upsurge of religious influence in our political life. Politics aside, I was able to enjoy a great and unusually warm January 30^th  (My daughter Dana’s birthday) when I drove up to Hyde Park to be part of the 124^th remembrance of the birth of Franklin Delano Roosevelt. The weather was great and there was a great address by Elizabeth Daniels, the 87 year-old Vassar College historian who had the pleasure of meeting and knowing the Roosevelt’s. If you check my website you can read “A Drive up the Taconic.”

Since my last Jon Breen letter of September 21, 2005, the Yankees again came up short in their quest to regain the World Series title and the football season came and went with no great surprises except the utter collapse of the Jets. Again, my wife Linda and I were able to get a lot of indoor tennis in this winter in our various games. We are both looking eagerly forward to getting outdoors to play once again. Over the fall and winter we traveled once again to Scottsdale, where we have time-sharing and up to lovely picturesque Sedona. This winter we were still able to continue our effort to get into the city with Mary and Warren Adis and one evening we had dinner with Michael and Sandy Rosenblum in NYC at the Shanghai Grill, a great place. The Mary and Warren Adis are off to Alaska this summer to see their daughter who spends her summers there. I keep up often with Alan Rosenberg and his continued interest in New York sports. Unfortunately his wife Wendy just recently lost her brother. Joel Grossman’s father passed away and Warren Adis and I attended his funeral in Scarsdale. I had known Walter for over 55 years. Barbara Blumberg Baron was up in White Plains and also made a call to Joel’s home. As usual I have been getting meaningful input from Stan Goldmark regarding MVHS sports history. I had received an email from Michael Schlanger (Davis 1961) about memories regarding the 1961 Davis basketball team. Meanwhile Marcia Salonger, also active NYC real estate, told me of her exciting ski trip to Italy, Mitchell Gurdus (MVHS 1965) is keeping busy in sunny Florida, Bill and Joan Bernstein are still enjoying retirement in Florida and we continue to exchange emails and phone calls regarding politics and societal developments. Lew Perelman who is a professional thinker, and with his wife Isabella they are both working on her musical career. I talked recently to Elaine Knopping Haimes whose son met my niece Amanda in London. Jane Zimelis Cohen is still active with charitable fund-raising in Los Angeles and I was able to talk to her not that long ago. Richard Hoffman is back in Washington working on a new commission. Richard Hoffman, Jane Zimelis, Shelly Greenberg, Joe Gerardi, Norman Raphael, and Arnie Siegel have all been recent contributors to the Jon Breen Fund, along with my good friend Robin (Fisher) Lyons (Davis 1958) whose sister Bonnie was in some of our grammar school classes. Alyson Bochow Cohen’s (MVHS 1966) son is getting married and she was quite disappointed with UCONN’s recent exit from the “March Madness” event and their 40^th reunion is coming up in the fall. Every once in a while I visit Laura Kosof Fluhr’s store (Michael’s) on Madison Avenue and she’s keeping busy hasn’t changed an iota. Michael and Sandy Rosenblum are active in real estate in the NYC and have been buying new homes all over the place. Dr. Larry Reich has sold his surgery practice in Los Angeles, and is into new ventures. Jimmy Kurtz and his wife Jan came and returned from an extended trip to Africa. Mathew Goldberg has been contributing interesting emails on public policy from his home in Oakland. I always get great jokes from Lee Jackel Egan from Florida. Armel MacDonald always appreciates remembrances about Henry Littlefield. I see Fran Sanders McKinley at High Holy Day services in Hastings. This spring we flew down to Grand Bahama Island and had a great week of swimming, sunning and tennis in the 80+degree weather.

Meanwhile the third task of the Jon Breen Fund has been to enable me to reconnect with many of my old friends from those Davis years and Mount Vernon in particular. That effort has been quite fulfilled. I have had a unique opportunity of speaking to many of our friends from those days, and I am happy to report that many are doing quite well, their children are mostly all grown up, and they like many of all of us cherish those Mount Vernon memories.

You can contribute to the Jon Breen Fund or the Henry M. Littlefield History Award by writing me at the above address, or sending a check directly to MVHS at 100 California Road, Mount Vernon, NY 10550 c/o Ms. Diane Petilli.

Regards,

Richard J. Garfunkel

Rjg727@optonline.net

The Colony Club, Jonathan Alter and the Hundred Days

by

Richard J. Garfunkel

May 22, 2006

It is really a small world out there and almost all of us are only “Six Degrees of Separation” from any and everyone. Recently through the excellent connections of my lovely wife Linda, I was able to get in contact with one of Newsweek’s best, Mr. Jonathan Alter. Mr. Alter, who after his graduation from Harvard in 1979, established a well-respected career as a journalist for the Washington Monthly before joining Newsweek in 1983. Along with his numerous awards he has gathered while at Newsweek as an outstanding columnist and editor, he has found time to be on NBC Today Show, be heard on Don Imus and contribute to The New Republic, The NY Times, and Esquire. He even was a visiting professor at Princeton in 1997. My son Jon was there then and even though he was always interested in politics and government, and was elected to office at Princeton, he was too tied up with his engineering load to get over to sit in on Jonathan Alter’s class on “Press and Politics”

After learning of Alter’s new book on Franklin Roosevelt, The Defining Moment: FDR’s First Hundred Days, I took the liberty of writing to him about my interest on the very same subject. Before long I started sending him pieces that I had written on the great man. When I received, my now autographed, copy of his book on FDR, I started to read his wonderful book and send my perspectives on some of his interesting vignettes. I finally finished it the other day and sent him a final email last night regarding my thoughts on his book.

By late afternoon I received his latest note and a separate email inviting us to the famous Colony Club for a cocktail party sponsored by the Roosevelt Institute in his honor.

—–Original Message—–
From: Alter, Jonathan [mailto:Jonathan.Alter@newsweek.com]
Sent: Monday, May 22, 2006 3:19 PM
To: 'Richard Garfunkel'
Subject: RE: The Defining Moment- May 21, 2006

all good ideas, thanks…i did imus and he helped a lot…oprah is not likely…see you tonight!

—–Original Message—–
From: Richard Garfunkel [mailto:rjg727@optonline.net]
Sent: Monday, May 22, 2006 4:16 PM
To: Alter, Jonathan
Subject: RE: The Defining Moment- May 21, 2006

There is a tremendous amount of interest in FDR amongst people my age (61) and older. One of the ways that you can reach some of these people is to have your publicist contact service organizations like the Rotary Club. I have spoken in front of 500 at the meeting of the Old Guard Assoc. in White Plains. I gave my speech on FDR/MacArthur at the Elmsford Rotary and there are 40 other Rotary Clubs in this area. I do it to grow my Long-Term Care Ins. business. In a way I meet people and tell them what I really do. There is no doubt that there is a disconnect amongst the younger generation, ages 17-31, and they do not read. I have been sponsoring an essay contest, in the name of my late friend Jon Breen, a Harvard Law School grad and a Fulbright scholar for 13 years and I have met countless young high school people, who are AP students and Ivy League caliber. I do annual lectures on FDR, The New Deal, WWII and similar subjects regarding the Presidency. To many this subject is real ancient history and they have a tough time relating. The book buying and reading population is out there but it is tougher to isolate. I know friends that participate in book clubs and discuss their latest choice. There maybe some umbrella organization that connects many of these book clubs. If one can get one's book on their agenda, things can happen. Obviously people like Ophra and Imus have developed an audience that maybe influenced by their “plug.” My sense is that you could go up to Hyde Park, and see if you can do a book signing and a talk at the library. The bottom line is to have your book on the top of FDR list. But even Martin Gilbert asked me to give him some ideas on how he can get his book more visibility. I had suggested to my sister, Mrs. Charles (Kaaren) Hale to have a book party amongst her friends in Belgravia where she lives. She has just written a book and told me that she would love to attend an event, but wouldn't host it!  Manhattanville had a series where authors came and spoke on their books. I saw and listened to Martin Gilbert, Blanche Wiesen Cook and James Bradley (Flag of Our Fathers) who is a riveting speaker. Meanwhile we'll talk more soon.

 I just got your email about the Colony Club and Linda and I will be there- Richard

—–Original Message—–
From: Alter, Jonathan [mailto:Jonathan.Alter@newsweek.com]
Sent: Monday, May 22, 2006 1:14 PM
To: 'Richard Garfunkel'
Subject: RE: The Defining Moment- May 21, 2006

Hi, Richard…. It was so wonderful to get your missive this morning. I hope to sell the book to lots of people who don't know much about FDR, but I actually wrote it looking for the approval of people like you–who have read so much about him. It was very difficult deciding what to keep and what to cut–I cut more than 25,000 words out of the book at the suggestion of my editor, who argued, rightly, I think, that a shorter book would work better. But it was painful. You mention Warren Delano, for instance. He was a great character and much that I learned about him was left on the cutting-room floor. (Though you might have noticed that there's practically another book entirely in the End Notes!). I'm not sure I agree that FDR should have served a fifth, sixth and seventh term had he lived (and I think he would have gratefully retired to Hilltop after his fourth). But I agree that Leuchtenberg's book on his legacy is marvelous. We ALL live in the shadow of FDR!!

A question for you: How do I get the word out about the book among people old enough to remember him? Any suggestions would be greatly appreciated.

—–Original Message—– From: Richard Garfunkel [mailto:rjg727@optonline.net] Sent: Sunday, May 21, 2006 11:19 PM To: Jonathan.alter@newsweek.com Subject: The Defining Moment- May 21, 2006

I called Linda, who works on 56^th Street and Madison and said, “Do you want to go to the Colony Club?” and I was happy she agreed. Mrs. J. (Jefferson) Borden Harriman originally founded the Colony Club, the oldest women’s club in New York, in 1902, with help from her friends (Mrs. John Jacob Astor and Mrs. Payne Whitney.) In its second location at 564 Park Avenue, where it has stood since 1916, the Georgian-style edifice may have claimed Eleanor Roosevelt as a member. But when she and her mother-in-law, Sara Delano Roosevelt were invited to be charter members they had refused. It was built originally on 120 Madison Avenue, from a design by Stanford White (remember him from Ragtime, when he was shot and killed by Evelyn Nesbitt’s estranged husband, Harry K. Thaw, in the roof garden of the old Madison Square Garden!)  Delano and Aldrich, who also built Kykuit, in Sleepy Hollow, the home of the Rockefeller dynasty that overlooks the Hudson and the Palisades, designed the present building. William Adams Delano (1874-1960) of the Massachusetts Delano’s, and Chester Holmes Aldrich (1871-1940) were Beaux Arts architects and designers for elite clients in NYC.

I made excellent time from Tarrytown and before long I was exiting on the FDR Drive at 71^st and heading east to Park Avenue. I decided to look for a parking space anywhere I could find one. But luckily, as I approached 63^rd Street going south on Park, a Rolls Royce, mind you, pulled out of a space almost directly in front of 564 Park. How fortuitous, no less convenient. I parked, walked 50 feet to the building, was checked in by the doorman and sent up to the 7^th floor outside patio. I was the first one there and eventually Linda came in with Chris Breiseth, a member of the Roosevelt family and a Roosevelt Institute senior board member. We had met when I helped chair the revival of the famous Roosevelt Birthday Balls, which we again held on January 30, 2003 at the Culinary Institute and Hyde Park. (FDR and Dana Garfunkel were born on January 30^th!) Not long after that our guest of honor arrived along with other Roosevelt aficionados. Jonathan Alter quickly felt right at home with his admirers and captivated the group with stories from his book.

It was a grand time, with marvelous canapés and drinks to satiate the digestive tract and lubricate the palate. I brought along a few FDR items from my collection and along with Linda, Jonathan Alter and the son of John C. Winant, who was a two-term Governor of New Hampshire and our wartime Ambassador to Great Britain, we tried to identify some of the dignitaries in a picture with FDR. So the book is The Defining Moment; FDR’s Hundred Days, and if you want to enjoy a very readable book that chronicles FDR’s pivotal roll in the saving of America, please read it this summer.

The Colony Club, Jonathan Alter and the Hundred Days

by

Richard J. Garfunkel

May 22, 2006

It is really a small world out there and almost all of us are only “Six Degrees of Separation” from any and everyone. Recently through the excellent connections of my lovely wife Linda, I was able to get in contact with one of Newsweek’s best, Mr. Jonathan Alter. Mr. Alter, who after his graduation from Harvard in 1979, established a well-respected career as a journalist for the Washington Monthly before joining Newsweek in 1983. Along with his numerous awards he has gathered while at Newsweek as an outstanding columnist and editor, he has found time to be on NBC Today Show, be heard on Don Imus and contribute to The New Republic, The NY Times, and Esquire. He even was a visiting professor at Princeton in 1997. My son Jon was there then and even though he was always interested in politics and government, and was elected to office at Princeton, he was too tied up with his engineering load to get over to sit in on Jonathan Alter’s class on “Press and Politics”

After learning of Alter’s new book on Franklin Roosevelt, The Defining Moment: FDR’s First Hundred Days, I took the liberty of writing to him about my interest on the very same subject. Before long I started sending him pieces that I had written on the great man. When I received, my now autographed, copy of his book on FDR, I started to read his wonderful book and send my perspectives on some of his interesting vignettes. I finally finished it the other day and sent him a final email last night regarding my thoughts on his book.

By late afternoon I received his latest note and a separate email inviting us to the famous Colony Club for a cocktail party sponsored by the Roosevelt Institute in his honor.

—–Original Message—–
From: Alter, Jonathan [mailto:Jonathan.Alter@newsweek.com]
Sent: Monday, May 22, 2006 3:19 PM
To: 'Richard Garfunkel'
Subject: RE: The Defining Moment- May 21, 2006

all good ideas, thanks…i did imus and he helped a lot…oprah is not likely…see you tonight!

—–Original Message—–
From: Richard Garfunkel [mailto:rjg727@optonline.net]
Sent: Monday, May 22, 2006 4:16 PM
To: Alter, Jonathan
Subject: RE: The Defining Moment- May 21, 2006

There is a tremendous amount of interest in FDR amongst people my age (61) and older. One of the ways that you can reach some of these people is to have your publicist contact service organizations like the Rotary Club. I have spoken in front of 500 at the meeting of the Old Guard Assoc. in White Plains. I gave my speech on FDR/MacArthur at the Elmsford Rotary and there are 40 other Rotary Clubs in this area. I do it to grow my Long-Term Care Ins. business. In a way I meet people and tell them what I really do. There is no doubt that there is a disconnect amongst the younger generation, ages 17-31, and they do not read. I have been sponsoring an essay contest, in the name of my late friend Jon Breen, a Harvard Law School grad and a Fulbright scholar for 13 years and I have met countless young high school people, who are AP students and Ivy League caliber. I do annual lectures on FDR, The New Deal, WWII and similar subjects regarding the Presidency. To many this subject is real ancient history and they have a tough time relating. The book buying and reading population is out there but it is tougher to isolate. I know friends that participate in book clubs and discuss their latest choice. There maybe some umbrella organization that connects many of these book clubs. If one can get one's book on their agenda, things can happen. Obviously people like Ophra and Imus have developed an audience that maybe influenced by their “plug.” My sense is that you could go up to Hyde Park, and see if you can do a book signing and a talk at the library. The bottom line is to have your book on the top of FDR list. But even Martin Gilbert asked me to give him some ideas on how he can get his book more visibility. I had suggested to my sister, Mrs. Charles (Kaaren) Hale to have a book party amongst her friends in Belgravia where she lives. She has just written a book and told me that she would love to attend an event, but wouldn't host it!  Manhattanville had a series where authors came and spoke on their books. I saw and listened to Martin Gilbert, Blanche Wiesen Cook and James Bradley (Flag of Our Fathers) who is a riveting speaker. Meanwhile we'll talk more soon.

 I just got your email about the Colony Club and Linda and I will be there- Richard

—–Original Message—–
From: Alter, Jonathan [mailto:Jonathan.Alter@newsweek.com]
Sent: Monday, May 22, 2006 1:14 PM
To: 'Richard Garfunkel'
Subject: RE: The Defining Moment- May 21, 2006

Hi, Richard…. It was so wonderful to get your missive this morning. I hope to sell the book to lots of people who don't know much about FDR, but I actually wrote it looking for the approval of people like you–who have read so much about him. It was very difficult deciding what to keep and what to cut–I cut more than 25,000 words out of the book at the suggestion of my editor, who argued, rightly, I think, that a shorter book would work better. But it was painful. You mention Warren Delano, for instance. He was a great character and much that I learned about him was left on the cutting-room floor. (Though you might have noticed that there's practically another book entirely in the End Notes!). I'm not sure I agree that FDR should have served a fifth, sixth and seventh term had he lived (and I think he would have gratefully retired to Hilltop after his fourth). But I agree that Leuchtenberg's book on his legacy is marvelous. We ALL live in the shadow of FDR!!

A question for you: How do I get the word out about the book among people old enough to remember him? Any suggestions would be greatly appreciated.

—–Original Message—– From: Richard Garfunkel [mailto:rjg727@optonline.net] Sent: Sunday, May 21, 2006 11:19 PM To: Jonathan.alter@newsweek.com Subject: The Defining Moment- May 21, 2006

I called Linda, who works on 56^th Street and Madison and said, “Do you want to go to the Colony Club?” and I was happy she agreed. Mrs. J. (Jefferson) Borden Harriman originally founded the Colony Club, the oldest women’s club in New York, in 1902, with help from her friends (Mrs. John Jacob Astor and Mrs. Payne Whitney.) In its second location at 564 Park Avenue, where it has stood since 1916, the Georgian-style edifice may have claimed Eleanor Roosevelt as a member. But when she and her mother-in-law, Sara Delano Roosevelt were invited to be charter members they had refused. It was built originally on 120 Madison Avenue, from a design by Stanford White (remember him from Ragtime, when he was shot and killed by Evelyn Nesbitt’s estranged husband, Harry K. Thaw, in the roof garden of the old Madison Square Garden!)  Delano and Aldrich, who also built Kykuit, in Sleepy Hollow, the home of the Rockefeller dynasty that overlooks the Hudson and the Palisades, designed the present building. William Adams Delano (1874-1960) of the Massachusetts Delano’s, and Chester Holmes Aldrich (1871-1940) were Beaux Arts architects and designers for elite clients in NYC.

I made excellent time from Tarrytown and before long I was exiting on the FDR Drive at 71^st and heading east to Park Avenue. I decided to look for a parking space anywhere I could find one. But luckily, as I approached 63^rd Street going south on Park, a Rolls Royce, mind you, pulled out of a space almost directly in front of 564 Park. How fortuitous, no less convenient. I parked, walked 50 feet to the building, was checked in by the doorman and sent up to the 7^th floor outside patio. I was the first one there and eventually Linda came in with Chris Breiseth, a member of the Roosevelt family and a Roosevelt Institute senior board member. We had met when I helped chair the revival of the famous Roosevelt Birthday Balls, which we again held on January 30, 2003 at the Culinary Institute and Hyde Park. (FDR and Dana Garfunkel were born on January 30^th!) Not long after that our guest of honor arrived along with other Roosevelt aficionados. Jonathan Alter quickly felt right at home with his admirers and captivated the group with stories from his book.

It was a grand time, with marvelous canapés and drinks to satiate the digestive tract and lubricate the palate. I brought along a few FDR items from my collection and along with Linda, Jonathan Alter and the son of John C. Winant, who was a two-term Governor of New Hampshire and our wartime Ambassador to Great Britain, we tried to identify some of the dignitaries in a picture with FDR. So the book is The Defining Moment; FDR’s Hundred Days, and if you want to enjoy a very readable book that chronicles FDR’s pivotal roll in the saving of America, please read it this summer.

 “The Defining Moment” FDR’s First Hundred Days and the Triumph of Hope

Comments to Jonathan Alter

By

Richard J. Garfunkel

May 12, 2006

In 1928 FDR ran against Albert Ottinger, the conservative Republic New York State Attorney-General. He was the uncle of former Congressman Richard L. Ottinger who represented congressional districts on both sides of Westchester County for twenty plus years from 1964 through1982.  When he represented the old 24^th CD, which was on the Long Island Sound side of the County, my wife Linda, who had earlier political experience with Howard Samuels and Robert Kennedy, worked for him from 1972 through 1981.

As an Administrative Assistant in his District Office she ran his Service Academy Review Board, a blue-ribbon panel that selected, on a non-partisan basis, his appointments to our military academies. During those years, as an active Democrat and a district leader on the White Plains Democratic City Committee I worked as his “advance man” from time to time. Ottinger, who was a bright guy with an under graduate degree from Cornell and a graduate degree from Harvard but had a tendency to be shy, was one of the first environmental heroes from this region.  When he first elected to Congress in the mid-1960’s, he represented the Yonkers side of the County in the 25^th CD and was instrumental in the effort to clean up and revitalize the Hudson River. Ottinger eventually spent a good piece of his US Plywood inheritance in a failed bid for the US Senate and was criticized for excessive spending. Today, even in “adjusted for inflation” dollars his spending was a pittance compared today’s mega-buck races. In 1970 he took on the liberal anti-war Republican Charles Goodell, who had been appointed by Governor Nelson Rockefeller to fill the seat of the late Robert Kennedy, and the Conservative Party choice James Buckley, brother of the National Review’s William F. Buckley. Because of the split in the moderate anti-war vote, the state was saddled with James Buckley for six long years.

Originally, in 1964, he ran and beat conservative Republican Robert Barry, who spent most of his time in California. In fact, after he lost, Barry ran unsuccessfully in two California districts, the 11^th and 38^th. Ottinger spent $200,000 in that race, and in the subsequent races he won handily after establishing an excellent record regarding “river preservation” and conservation. It seems that after the redistricting of 1970, that shifted too many Democrats out of the 25^th CD, Ottinger decided to run for the Senate. Bill Dretzin fought a hard campaign in the primary with the slogan “He can save Ottinger’s seat,” and upset the favored opponent, Bill Greenawalt (my current foe) who stayed in the campaign with the Liberal line. In the general election Dretzin lost to Peter Peyser (who later changed parties.) Of course Greenawalt, who only polled 5,697 votes or 3% and did not really affect the outcome. Peyser won by approximately 10,000 votes or 6% with the added burden of a Conservative Party candidate, one Anthony DeVito, who polled over 31,000 votes and 17% of the vote. I can certainly understand Ottinger’s trepidation about running in the old 25^th.

In 1970 in the Senate race, appointed Senator Charles Goodell was running far behind in all of the polls. Goodell, an upstate Republican Congressman, was appointed in 1968 to fill Robert Kennedy’s seat, became won of the Senate’s leading and outspoken doves and liberals. The views of the liberal Ottinger, who won the Democratic primary with a saturation television campaign, were indistinguishable from Goodell. In the general election, James Buckley, a well financed Conservative, was able to match Ottinger’s spending dollar for dollar, about one million dollars for each campaign. The liberal vote was split; the GOP had become more conservative with their alienation with John Lindsey, who represented the more liberal Protestant wing of the Republican Party. Lindsey had lost the support of many of the party’s Catholic supporters in Queens and Staten Island. Unlike Jacob Javits, who could rely on Democratic crossovers in the general election, liberal WASP Republicans were more vulnerable. Ottinger ran a strong environmental campaign, and the NY Times endorsed Goodell, who polled only 14% citywide. But in Manhattan he polled 30%. If that 16% margin had gone to Ottinger he would have won. The final vote was: Buckley 2,288,190 or 39%, Ottinger 2,171,232 or 37%, and Goodell 1,434,472 or 24%.

In retrospect, Ottinger’s spending in the primary had probably insured his nomination, but turned off the Times, who felt that Goodell deserved to be elected because of his stands on the war. They probably felt that moderate and liberal voices in the Republican Party were good for America. In retrospect it is hard to believe that the State would have no Democratic state office holders except Arthur Levitt. New York had elected statewide Democrats for many years. People like Al Smith, Royal S. Copeland, Franklin Roosevelt, Robert F. Wagner, Sr., Herbert Lehman had dominated NY State politics until the rise of Thomas Dewey!

With regards to 1928 campaign, there were accusations hurled the FDR camp over anti-Semitism used against Albert Ottinger. Roosevelt, though obviously helped by that rumor, vigorously denied any connection with that type of low-level spurious tactics. Also, the fact, that his running mate for Lt. Governor was Herbert Lehman muted the criticism. FDR won by a narrow vote of 28,000, which was about one vote per NY State election precinct. Roosevelt eventually won re-election by 725,000 in 1930, a record for any majority in any statewide election throughout the electoral history of the United States. (Of course New York State had by far the most voters at that period of time.)  His record didn’t last that long.

Herbert Lehman, who was elected to his first term in 1932, faced a very tough re-election opponent with the candidacy of Robert Moses, the State and City Park’s Commissioner. Of course the campaign waged by the aggressive Moses was vituperative and insulting and resulted in the greatest numerical landslide in the history of the state or any state of the Union. It even broke FDR’s record landslide numerical victory of 1930. Lehman won by 808,091 votes, and Moses 35% of the vote was the lowest total for a major party in the 157-year history of NY State elections. In fact, the GOP lost both Houses of the State Legislature for the first time in 21 years. Within a year the GOP won back the assembly and didn’t lose it back for another 29 years until LBJ’s landslide of 1964.

The following is from Robert Caro’s book The Power Broker.

On Election Night, (Robert) Moses was careful to show an elaborate disregard of the vote. Reporters ushered into his apartment at 7 Gracie Square saw him poring over a map of the city “outlining park and playground prospects, while he whistled softly” and “giving only perfunctory attention, apparently, to the election returns relayed to him.” I haven’t the slightest regrets in any way, shape or manner,” her. “I’ve done the best I could. I’ve conducted an honorable campaign and adhered to my convictions. That is all there is to it.” And he said that he was planning to return to his park job the next morning.

There was no question about his returning to his city job, of course, but the fact that he included in the statement his state park work showed that he knew Herbert Lehman much better than his campaign attacks on the Governor would have made it appear. For Lehman’s treatment of Moses after the campaign was the definitive word on the Governor’s character.

Lehman was bitterly hurt by Moses’ charges, but he would not allow personal feelings to interfere with his duty. “We have differed in the past and probably in the future, but in planning and administration of parks, parkways and recreational facilities, Bob Moses has no superior on the face of the world,” the Governor announced. Moses would continue to head the state park system as long as he was Governor, he said. “He was terribly sensitive because he said that I called him a liar in the campaign,” Moses would recall, but “I found him a very nice fellow to deal with. A very decent, honorable, honest fellow. He always supported me when he was Governor.”

Moses should have known that Lehman would support him. After all, the “cowardly, sniveling, lying weakling” had always supported him before.

Speaking of Elections and Almost Ancient History!

Richard J. Garfunkel

December 22, 2004

In late March of 1945 President Franklin Delano Roosevelt made a trip to Warm Springs, Georgia to rest and recover before his anticipated trip to San Francisco to address the opening of the inaugural United Nations meeting. During this period of time FDR’s close associate of more than 25 years Judge Samuel I. Rosenman was in England visiting Winston Churchill at his home at Chequers. As they talked Churchill was thinking about FDR’s upcoming visit to England at the end of May.

Churchill said, “There are two things which I wish to convey for me to your great President- both matters of personal interest to me,” Churchill said. “First, as you know, the President and Mrs. Roosevelt have accepted the invitations of their Majesties to make a visit to England during the month of May. Will you tell him from me that he is going to get from the British people the greatest reception ever accorded to any human since Lord Nelson made his triumphant return to London? I want you to tell him that when he sees the reception his is going to get, he will realize that it is not an artificial or stimulated one. It will come genuinely from the people; they all love him for what he has done to save them from the destruction by the Huns; they love him also for what he has done for the cause of peace in the world, for what he has done to relieve their fear that the horrors they have been through for five years might come upon them again with increased fury.

“Here is the second thing I want you to tell you him,” Churchill continued, Rosenman noted, “a bit sheepishly.”

“Do you remember when I came over to your country in the summer of 1944 when your election campaign was beginning? Do you remember that when I arrived, I said something favorable to the election of the President, and immediately the associates of the President sent word to me in no uncertain terms to ‘lay off’ discussing the American election? Do you remember I was told that that if I wanted to help the President get re-elected, the best thing I could do was to keep my mouth shut; that the American people would resent any interference or suggestion by a foreigner about how they should vote?”

With what Rosenman called “one of his most engaging laughs,” Churchill said, “Now what I want to tell the President is this. When he comes over here in May I shall be in the midst of a political campaign myself; we shall be holding our own elections about that time. I want you to tell him that I impose no such inhibitions upon him as he imposed on me. The British people would not resent – and of course I would particularly welcome – any word that he might want to say in favor of my candidacy.”

Judge Rosenman would never have a chance to deliver Churchill’s message. President Roosevelt died in Warm Springs, Georgia on April 12^th, 1945. When that British election came Winston Churchill was retired by the British electorate in a landslide. In a short period of time, as the fates would have it, the two greatest leaders and defenders of the free world would pass from the political scene. As a result Harry S Truman and Clement Atlee came to Potsdam for their fateful, first and only, meeting with Joseph Stalin, and the world was never the same. Would there have been a difference if Roosevelt had lived, visited London triumphantly, and subsequently helped Churchill to win his election, and then went on to the Soviet Union to visit the Russian people? We’ll never know. But maybe FDR, as with Moses, wasn’t allowed to enter into the “Promised Land.” Maybe, FDR, who like Moses, had used up all his “currency” with G-d, and was therefore deprived of his ultimate honor!

Funny thing about elections!

Richard J. Garfunkel

From: Richard Garfunkel [rjg727@optonline.net]
Sent: Wednesday, May 10, 2006 11:01 AM
To: Jonathan.alter@newsweek.com
Subject: FDR – your new book

Martin Gilbert’s Churchill in America, a review

Personal Reflections on Eisenhower

By

Richard J. Garfunkel

May 2, 2006

After I finished your excellent and very readable book Churchill in America I wanted to send to you my perspectives on what you had written. First of all I was quite impressed, as usual, with your overall treatment of Churchill and his almost lifelong commitment to a lasting détente between America and Britain. In a sense it was a wish to have a permanent union of the English-Speaking world. Of course this desire of his, that almost became a seeming obsession in his later years. It was basically quashed by events that neither country really foresaw or understood in the halcyon days flowing collapse of German resistance after the Rhine River was breached, and the Nazi regime collapsed into ignominy and was relegated to dustbin of history.

On the other hand I had a few problems with your analysis and consistency regarding FDR’s health and Churchill’s attitude with Eisenhower. With regards to these two salient points I will try to not only respond to what you have written, but also my own personal perspectives on Eisenhower. In your analysis of FDR’s health there is no doubt that from all perspectives he was quite ill and had moments that reflected a loss of focus. He was exhausted and was obviously suffering from arterial-sclerosis among serious ailments, not including heart disease and hypertension. Certainly the efforts of Dr. Howard Bruen, his cardiologist, helped keep him alive over the 12 months since his own Doctor, Admiral Ross McIntyre, called him in, on a consultation. But in his speech to a joint session of Congress, upon his return, he reflected his total understanding of the consequences and implications of the Yalta agreements. Other than a slight slurring of his once powerful voice, that was most certainly the result of either a transient ischemic attack or a slight stroke he delivered it well and made his points and positions with clarity.

In reality two or three points should be made. FDR was vitally concerned with the continued alliance between the British, the Soviets, and the United States. FDR understood and remembered clearly the disaster that followed Wilson’s failure to convince the American people of the need for the League of Nations. FDR was almost at the nexus of that ill-fated and stillborn campaign by President Wilson. FDR an early believer in international cooperation was quite unhappy with President Wilson refusal to compromise with the Senator Henry Cabot Lodge led Senate “Irreconcilables.” Young FDR’s meeting with British Foreign Secretary Edward Grey caused an apoplectic reaction in President Wilson, and if his deteriorating health had not intervened, Roosevelt may have been dismissed from his position of Assistant secretary of the Navy. I am sure pro-Wilson supporters William Gibbs McAdoo, Wilson’s Secretary of Treasury and son-in-law and Newton Baker, Wilson’s Secretary of War still held this against candidate Roosevelt when he sought the nomination for the Presidency in Chicago in 1932. Wilson wanted a totally unified front regarding the subject of the League, and the appearance of Roosevelt’s hint of personal diplomacy with Grey seemed, to the ill-fated and sick President, as disloyalty. FDR therefore was very careful of not wanting to appear to Stalin that he and Churchill were making separate deals and therefore be “ganging up” on the Soviets. FDR of course knew that while we were carrying the brunt of the war in the Pacific. We would possibly need Soviet cooperation in the final invasion of Japan. Remember at that time there were three obvious realities at hand. One was that the invasion could cost the American forces one million casualties. There were some British forces in the Pacific but the vast naval armada that made up the 3^rd Fleet was American though Ch, of course, the Chinese-India-Burma Theater was basically a British operation. The Japanese had 5000 available planes for their kamikaze effort, and the availability of young “volunteers” for these suicide missions was limitless. The recent beating that the Fleet was taking off Iwo Jima and Okinawa foreshadowed more extensive carnage to face the Operation Olympic and later Coronet invasions of Japan. The second most vital reality was that the Atomic Bomb was still untested and untried. FDR could never assume that this weapon would work or be even delivered. Besides that, the Russians, through their Los Alamos spies, were aware also that it did not work as of yet. The third and last fact, later proven incorrect, I believe, was that the Japanese had a two million man army in Manchuria that was completely armed, intact, battle tested, and unbeaten. This force could have easily been transferred to the Home Islands, if and when, needed. Therefore with the bloody histories of Iwo Jima, and Okinawa, there was the determination at Yalta that the Soviets would attack the Japanese Army in Manchuria, which they eventually did.

Of course the issue of Poland, which you referred to extensively on page 333, was much more complicated. Assuming FDR consigned Admiral William D. Leahy, his personal Join Chief and his staff to answer Churchill on Poland, what else could the United States do? I assume FDR did not want to deal with Churchill directly on this issue because he knew it was a losing one. Could the Western Allies threaten the Soviets?  Again, not only did FDR not know whether the A-Bomb would work, but the Russians knew it was not yet workable. In reality millions of Soviet troops in three massive armies, led Zhukov, Konev and Rokossovsky were closing in on the Germans. After years of fighting, especially on their own, they were not going to be deprived of their prize, their piece of Germany, and their security buffer of Eastern European vassal states.. Whether Stalin’s megalomania, his failure to heed information from his master spy Richard Sorge, his rejection of information on the attack from the British, provided to him before Operation Barbarosa, or his own paranoia, all which inhibited his defense, that didn’t change his mind on Germany after his victory at Kursk. He therefore never intended to have a so-called free and independent Poland between the Soviet Union and his eventual German occupation zone. Therefore, why was Churchill so naïve?

Churchill’s recognition of an “iron curtain” and Truman’s knowledge of the workability of the A-Bomb still didn’t change Soviet aggression in Eastern Europe. In fact, that plan of action had become a fait accompli long before Yalta. As history has recorded, the Soviets wanted to dominate Eastern Europe and they did. Could the Allies, FDR and Churchill, with a more united front prevented that consequence? In most cases their protestations would have quickly exposed their opposition to the Soviets, and any thoughts of a post war United Nations would have failed then and there. Short of force, which neither of the Western Allies would consider, the Soviets had the upper hand. For better or worse the Soviets felt that the new Eastern Europe would be their trading bloc and it would counter the so-called unity of the western capitalists. Also British interests in Greece seemed to FDR to threaten and jeopardize our potential military needs in the Pacific. Churchill was obsessive over the Balkans and the so-called soft-under belly of the Axis. He felt activity there would secure British influence in Greece, and the Mediterranean. Churchill never forgot that it was his failed Gallipoli Plan in the First World War that had sabotaged his career and terminated his role as First Lord of the Admiralty. FDR was quite aware of Churchill’s thoughts regarding that failed episode. Of course Britain went to war over Poland and it was a harsh reality that they would not be free and independent after the war. I am sure that all the western delegations had trepidation over what the post-war Polish government would look like. Accordingly the Soviet’s agreements at Yalta, regarding Japan were followed and they went to war against Japan on August 6, 1945, coincidently the day the Atomic Bomb was unleashed on Hiroshima. The Soviets fulfilled their agreement and invaded Manchuria. Of course, once we had the bomb, the need for Soviet help diminished quickly and the United States made sure that the Soviets were left out of the occupation of Japan. Though they did acquire Sakhalin Island for their efforts and remained there for decades.

With regards to Eisenhower, it has been written that is was his decision, and his decision alone, to go for Berlin or halt. Eisenhower had just faced stiff German resistance during the Battle of the Bulge. The United States took their greatest casualties of the war in that action. He may just have miscalculated the “new” German desire to “give ground” to the Western Allies while they resisted heavily against the Soviets. Be that as it may, Eisenhower did not want to incur unnecessary losses for land, that he knew that he would most probably have to give up later, according to the already decided “occupation zones.” On the other hand, he did not see Berlin as an important military or even political objective. As it turned out, it was a large mistake by Ike regarding both Germany and Czechoslovakia. It is reasonable to assume that any land gotten by “blood” could be used as a bargaining chip with the Soviets. But of course Eisenhower was as a general a better politician and as a politician a better general.  He was a planner and classic staff college high achiever. I could never imagine Eisenhower as a “big picture” thinker. Also never forget that General MacArthur termed him as the “best clerk in the Army!” Eisenhower made many mistakes as a general, but had a winning personality, especially when dealing with the British. Besides our failures at the Kasserine Pass in North Africa, and our slow painful progress in Tunisia, and later our caution regarding our breakout at Anzio, Italy, and our failure to trap the retreating German Army in the Falaise Gap which was a major disaster (the war could have ended there!) his record was spotty. He certainly did not exploit Patton’s aggressive successes in France, and his plan to advance on the Rhine River with Montgomery in the lead was also foolhardy. Quick local improvised action, beyond Ike’s grasp and planning, in taking the Ludendorf Bridge at Remagen, made Monty’s efforts almost irrelevant. Besides all of that he agreed to Market-Garden, a major allied mistake and was caught basically unprepared with the last great German offensive in the Ardennes.

Of course General George Marshall was expected to command SHAEF, but FDR would not let Marshall leave the country and Marshall selected Eisenhower. He had only Bradley, Clark, Hodges, Simpson, and Patton to choose from, and Patton was out, Bradley was junior to Ike and Clark was tied up in Italy. Hodges and Simpson did not have the credentials. But it has also been said that FDR, in his consideration of Eisenhower for the post of Supreme Commander, was not unhappy the Ike had a German surname and heritage. In 1940, 40% of all Americans had German blood, and they were by far the largest national group in America. FDR was quite aware of German-American resistance to America’s entry into World War I on the side of the British and the her Allies. He was also aware of German-American historical revisionism in the 1920’s to our WWI effort. The country’s vitriolic reaction to anything German was an embarrassment to America. FDR felt that it did not hurt our position, from a propaganda perspective, to have the “face” of the American command, an officer with a German surname.

Interestingly regarding your quote, on page 336, that Samuel I. Rosenman, FDR’s personal lawyer, and friend and confidant (if anyone could be either) said that FDR was gravely ill.  But still again, Churchill, was asking Rosenman to deliver a request for FDR to show positive support for him (if he could politically) in the upcoming Parliamentary election, and was planning for FDR’s triumphal visit to London after Germany was defeated. Somehow Rosenman didn’t seem that alarmed at FDR’s immediate future as late as early April 1945.  Again, as you wrote, that on April 9^th that FDR again, in his own words, warned Churchill about antagonizing Stalin. He seemed on one hand to rationalize the “Polish” situation as another Soviet Problem. But of course he ended, pragmatically, “We must be firm, however and our course thus far is correct.” With this language FDR is on one hand saying, we have problems in Eastern Europe but we cannot “rock the boat” with the Soviets. But be firm, our course will be right!

Unfortunately FDR’s problem was his lack of confronting his own mortality. He still really thought of himself as the “Indispensable Man.” Long before FDR had used that term as a political prop. He of course said, there is no “indispensable man” but never really believed it. At no time, in the preceding year did FDR question his heart specialist, Dr. Howard Bruen on his condition. In a sense by denying himself the information, from his own doctor, regarding the extent of his medical problems, FDR could go sincerely on without being historically liable or with a sense of guilt. If Dr. Bruen had told FDR that he was a dying man in the spring of 1944, would he have chosen to run again for the Presidency in all-good conscience? In retrospect could FDR’s health be compared to the story of the Emperor’s “new clothes?” Were all of his friends and advisors afraid of bringing up his deteriorating health? Even Eleanor Roosevelt assumed, like he did, that he would bounce back after a few restful weeks in Warm Springs. But again, she later said that she had trepidations about whether she would see him again.

With regards to Churchill and he relationship with Eisenhower, I note some inconsistencies and paradoxical remarks. On one hand Churchill praises Eisenhower effusively for his speech in July 1951 at an English-Speaking Union dinner. He calls it one of the greatest speeches delivered by any American in his lifetime (page 398). Personally I find that remarkable, unbelievable and altogether amazing. Churchill must have been either self-deluded by his over use of flattery, inebriated, or aware of something that no one else was. Accordingly Churchill is “drooling” over the prospect of Eisenhower’s election (page 410). He felt according, to Jock Colville, his confidant and close friend, who said that “He (Churchill) told me that if Eisenhower were elected President, he would have another shot at making peace by means of a meeting of the Big Three” (Churchill, Stalin and the newly elected Eisenhower). How wrong he was on that issue! Churchill seemed to desperate to be at the center of the world stage.

Later on, after Eisenhower was elected, he (Churchill) was advised to amend portions of his memoirs dealing with his disagreements with him over so-called appeasements of large tracts of Europe. Well of course, little could have been done as I had said earlier. But again, it is true, that Eisenhower had the right to move the front forward on his own. He was cautious for whose sake, FDR’s? The Yalta Agreements?  Again Churchill reflects, (on page 414) “If Roosevelt had lived… and had been in good health, he would have seen the red light in time to check the American policy. Truman after all had only been a novice, bewildered to the march of events.” It seems Churchill is careful not to criticize FDR and was willing to lay the blame for so-called concessions and failures in Eastern Europe, on FDR’s poor health, Eisenhower’s timidity, and Truman’s inexperience.

You also quoted Churchill (on page 430) regarding his comments about that “The President (Eisenhower) was one of the few people from whom the Prime Minister derived pleasure in talking to him.” Churchill added: “Thank G-d you have him at the head of your country…” That also seems remarkable to me that Churchill would be sincere about those statements. I don’t doubt he said it, but was he really serious. As history has shown, Eisenhower turned out to be very unpopular in England, and the country most favored Adlai Stevenson over him in 1956. There were many disagreements with Eisenhower and Churchill regarding the containment of the Soviet Union, summit conferences, and the bi-lateral support for different initiatives. Whether it was over the creation and the use of the Hydrogen Bomb, British support in Korea, or American pressure against the joint British-French-Israeli Suez operation, British-American relations deteriorated.  Eisenhower, in one of his negative remarks to Churchill’s entreaties said, “I do not like talking informally,” he wrote, “with those who only wish to entrap and embarrass us.” This was from the man that Churchill enjoyed talking to! Churchill was not deterred.  Three days after Eisenhower’s reply, (Jock) Colville noted that he (Churchill) was still “wrapped up with the possibility of bringing something off with the Russians and with the idea of meeting with Malenkov face to face.” Colville added (page 422) that Churchill was “very disappointed in Eisenhower, who he thinks is both weak and stupid and bitterly regretted that the Democrats were not returned at the last presidential election.” That was quite a change from the man who thought that Eisenhower was so erudite and interesting. On a personal note, no one I have ever known thought that Eisenhower was interesting.

Well was that said in a fit of pique with Eisenhower? Or was it a true reflection of his frustrations with Eisenhower and his Secretary of State John Foster Dulles? My sense of it is that Churchill really found Eisenhower out, and was being brutally honest with his most loyal confidant. I will add my own impressions of Eisenhower later. Ironically the last real cooperation between the two old Allies was the overthrown of Colonel Mossadeq and the re-installing of the Shah back on the Peacock Throne of Iran. It looked good at the time and Churchill thought that it was their greatest (USA-UK) joint effort since the war. Of course in the short run it probably was. But twenty years later the Iranian Revolution ensued and look where we are today. That earlier event, engineered by the CIA and Kermit Roosevelt, (my grandfather met Kermit Roosevelt in India right after that event) seemed to be a major issue and rallying cry regarding both nationalism and the over-throw of the Shah. 

But all in all we have learned a greater truth from your review and investigation of Churchill and his involvement with America, the ancestral home of his mother, Jennie Jerome. The essence of that truth is that both the United Kingdom and the United States have different interests and on the smaller regional scale they have diverged often. But on the large scale, the “special relationship” that started in the First World War, and was cemented in Argentia Bay with the signing of the Atlantic Charter by FDR and Churchill has endured ever since. Certainly that special partnership was able to deal quite effectively with our “common” foes. FDR’s political skills and charm, along with Winston Churchill’s oratorical heroics and strength of resolve, were able to meld both English-Speaking countries into a most dynamic democratic force for freedom.

With regards to President Eisenhower, I was a teenager in 1960 when he left office. My parents were life-long Democrats and certainly admirers of both FDR and Truman. They distrusted military men as politicians and voted for Stevenson in both 1952 and 1956. I had been a history and World War II “buff” since the age of ten, and by the age of thirteen, in 1958, I had read most of the books on World War II in the Mount Vernon, NY public library (the 6^th largest in the State of New York.). Of course in 1958 there was only a tiny fraction of the books available today on the war. Also because of statutory limitations on the release of information regarding the Ultra Secret, or the Enigma Code, most histories of the war were flawed.  I read Eisenhower’s best-selling book, Crusade in Europe and still have it in my huge historical library. I was never impressed with Eisenhower as a general, and as President who could be impressed with his uninspiring speaking style.  He was an ant-intellectual who basically liked golf, bridge, and reading Zane Grey westerns. His wife was no real help. She was jealous, for good reason, was a possessive military wife, who had a reputation for being an alcoholic that arose at noon from bed, and who said little and stood for less. His cabinet was undistinguished and was derogatorily referred to as ten millionaires and a plumber. The plumber was his Secretary of Labor, named Martin Durkin, and he was gone the first year. He was a vindictive man and terribly disloyal to the memory of FDR his Commander-in-Chief, Truman, who appointed him and sustained his career, and George Marshall his greatest ally and sponsor. He let Senator Joseph McCarthy insult, libel and excoriate Marshall without coming to his defense. He hated Truman, who had the courtesy and decency of inviting and ordering his active duty officer son John, to his inauguration. He felt Truman had betrayed some sort of military custom. I am sure FDR never was not unhappy when his active military sons were given time off to serve their father! Eisenhower had a vindictive streak about himself.

Eisenhower was not prepared to be President. He was inexperienced politically and operated his administration as a “Chairman of the Board.” He allowed his cabinet to create policy. Two of his real disastrous appointments were at Commerce, Sinclair Weeks, and at Agriculture, Ezra Taft Benson, an elder in the Mormon Church. His farm policies created a political disaster for Republicans in the farm belt. In the 1958, the GOP, because of Benson’s policies, lost more Congressional seats in the Midwest than at any time since Lincoln, except during the depths of the Great depression and FDR’s landslides. Aside from our domestic problems with three severe recessions, Eisenhower’s foreign policy was not a sterling success. Not only did Eisenhower oppose the Suez Intervention by our Allies in 1956, but left the Hungarians and their revolt out on a limb. The Russians regarding the Suez bluffed him, and his intervention in Lebanon in 1958, without consultation with NATO, left us vulnerable in that area in the coming years. He prevented Israel from getting arms and left them having to rely on the French. He did nothing about the rise of Castro in Cuba and his CIA left the inexperienced Kennedy with a disaster on his hands regarding the “Bay of Pigs.” His South American policies set back FDR’s Good Neighbor outreach policy by decades, and Nixon’s so-called “goodwill tour” ended in riots and chaos. The Eisenhower-Dulles policy in Indo-China also wound up creating more problems for us in the future. As part of their “containment” policy they failed to see the inherent nationalism in the 100 year Indo-Chinese rebellion against the French. Wherein FDR promised Ho Chi Minh independence from colonial rule if he helped the Allies against Japan, after his death that was not fulfilled. As the armed revolution by the Viet Minh gained intensity, Eisenhower provided $90 million in cash and arms to the French, but would not promise or deliver men. Of course the French fell at Dienbienphu, and instead of the Allies recognizing an independent Vietnam, they divided the country, not unlike Korea, into a north and south bifurcated region. If the United States had seen the reality of the situation, and had understood that Indo-China nationalism was much more important than Communism, the disaster of the future Vietnam War may have been averted. Eisenhower did not understand that the southern part of the country was more agrarian and more dominated by the “land reformers” and the Communists and the industrial north around Hanoi and Haiphong was the more capitalistic oriented. Therefore, when Dienbienphu collapsed, the northern “business” class fled south, and was able to take command of the new government in the south. JFK’s connections with the northern Catholic minority, led by the Diem family, would have never happened. In other words, when Ho Chi Minh defeated out the French, we would have been able to have our own relationship with that new country, and helped them be weaned away from ancient rival China.

Besides all of that, Eisenhower became entrapped in a disaster regarding his “lies” about U-2 over-flights of the Soviet Union and the capture of Captain Francis Gary Powers. When he was confronted by those facts at the Geneva Summit by Premier Khrushchev, he and the United States were embarrassed and the meeting collapsed and failed. Well he was certainly right about being “entrapped!” On the domestic front, the Sherman Adams scandal exposed Eisenhower’s office to the charge of corruption. Adams was accused of accepting a bribe of a vicuna coat from one Bernard Goldfine, who had pending business with the government. Not only was his administration tarnished but also Eisenhower really lost his “assistant” President. It was really Adams a former New Hampshire Congressman and Governor who ran the White House, as Eisenhower’s Chief of Staff. After Adams, who had appeared on the cover of Time Magazine twice, the White House started to really drift with the aging and sick President. In the 1958 disastrous midterm elections, the Republicans who were slightly in the minority in the Senate, 49-47 lost 15 seats, giving the Democrats a 30-seat majority, 64 to 34. In the House where they also were in the minority 233-220 they lost 50 seats and the Democratic majority went from 13 seats to 130. Because of this “landslide” Eisenhower became a “lame duck” for the remainder of his term.

 He regretted appointing Earl Warren to the Supreme Court, but did federalize the Arkansas National Guard in 1957, and did bring the 101^st Airborne in to help integrate Little Rock’s Central High School. But he did little for Civil Rights except encourage delay and obfuscation and the formerly solid Republican Black GOP vote never returned. The economy languished under his so-called benign, pro-laissez-faire leadership. We had three severe recessions under his watch.

During his administration, a time of plenty for some, and great prosperity for the white suburbs, the cities were crumbling under his administration. Crime grew in America as Blacks languished in ghettoes in the center city. All over, the vision of Black Board Jungle and West Side Story were played out in America’s inner cities. As these white-middle class suburbs prospered, we started to decline academically all over the country as many sections of the cities became enclaves of gangs, and their “mean streets” could not be traveled and were subsequently uninhabitable. People were in fear in those neighborhoods, as “white flight” became a tsunami. Finally in 1957 with the launching of Sputnik, by the Soviets, some awakened in Congress to the reality that many of our schools were 2^nd and 3^rd rate. Young people were out of shape and lazy and Washington’s uninspired leadership had little connection with the either the problems of that day or young people’s aspirations. Ironically this divide between rich and poor, and those who knew and didn’t were repeated in the 1980’s with Ronald Reagan at the helm, and today with George W. Bush. It is said that “patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel,” and both Reagan and Bush have masked over many of our problems by wrapping themselves in the flag. In the Eisenhower Administration patriotism and the blurring of the “Establishment Clause” of the US Constitution started to emerge. Remember, it is at that time, that the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag had “under G-d.” added to its words. Ironically Eisenhower, like Reagan never were Church-going or religious individuals.

If any man should not have been elected President it was Dwight Eisenhower. He covered up his heart attack in 1948 and because of the serious nature of that type of condition he would have been almost disqualified for that nomination by either party. What was the result?  Eisenhower was by far the unhealthiest man to serve as President. He suffered a serious heart attack in 1955, had a stroke, and an attack of Ileitis. He was out of circulation more than any other President, and of course, this is where Sherman Adams stepped in to fill the breach. Ironically he remained popular, and if he were younger, healthier, and Constitutionally able he probably would have won a third term. Probably the same could have been said for Ronald Reagan.

Eisenhower knew little about America. He had not really lived much in the country from mid 1930’s until the early 1950’s. In his early career he had little contact with average Americans as he was posted in dusty backwater billets. He missed out of serving in combat in World War I. After the end of hostilities and the de-mobilization he was considered a good staff officer and was assigned to General Douglas MacArthur in the early 1930’s. He was involved with the “Bonus March” cleanup and resultant political embarrassment to the Hoover Administration. He followed MacArthur to Philippines after the former Chief of Staff was exiled from Washington by FDR. It was said that he never knew how to use a dial phone or drive a car. After his success in World War II he was selected by Truman to head NATO and after a short period he came back to the states and was selected to be President of Columbia University. Insiders derided his appointment, because it was said that it came from a mix-up. The talk was that the Trustees wanted his brother Milton, a renowned educator and that the wrong Eisenhower was asked! His tenure at Columbia was short-lived and basically a disaster. Eisenhower had a difficult time relating to the dynamics of academia. He was used to giving orders, having someone else listen and react. He had little or no sense of humor and the prospect of raising money for the university was anathema to him. Not only was he not comfortable with Columbia but also he was not really comfortable with the press. When he became President, his Press Secretary Jim Haggerty staged his press conferences and the questions were pre-screened. He did few off-the -cuff interviews and he never seemed to have a real grasp of the issues at hand. Personally, I was too young to fully digest much of the detail regarding his public appearances. But as an individual with a great interest in history and World War II, I did watch with great relish his television special with Walter Cronkite regarding the 20^th anniversary of D-Day in June of 1964. Of course Eisenhower was 74 years old at that time, and not a really well man. But he was alert enough to make the program interesting.  When I later saw complete re-runs of the famous broadcast I was less impressed. Eisenhower had no sense of humor, very little wit and in reality the show was not too terribly enlightening. Could the same show with General Bradley or Admiral Alan Kirk, the naval commander at Normandy been more interesting? Who knows? Eisenhower had the cachet value as the former head of SHAEF and a popular two-time President.

 In 1960 he barely campaigned for his Vice-President, Richard Nixon. Later on he regretted not doing more for him. Nixon only lost by 2/10 of a percent in the popular vote and a swing of 25,000 votes in Illinois and Texas would have given him the election in the Electoral College. He capped that campaign off with another faux pas. When asked by the press if he could think of something worthwhile that the Vice-president had done in eight years, he answered that if they gave him some time he could come up with something. Again, ironically, Eisenhower hadn’t really meant that and deeply regretted the impression he had given. With all of Nixon’s warts, Eisenhower actually liked the star-crossed Nixon, who he had supported right from the beginning, that had included the “Checker’s slush fund crisis. All in all, he was a mediocre President and in the Schesinger historian’s poll of the mid 1960’s he was rated below average.

In retrospect I give Eisenhower high marks for being a decent honest man. He opened up the “Death Camps” for the world’s media and he allowed the Czechs to take vengeance on the Nazis. He was no friend of the American Jewish community at large, and Jews were conspicuously absent in his administration, his inner circle and with his appointments to lower positions. He was a man who really who proved the axiom that war is too important to be left to the generals.