No event shaped the twentieth century more than World War II, and no leader shaped the conduct of the war and the formation of the modern world more than President Franklin D. Roosevelt. In this anthology, leading scholars examine Roosevelt's role in the international arena, focusing on his diplomacy with Europe, Russia, the Baltic States, Canada, and the Caribbean; his relations with American Jews in the face of the Holocaust; his military appointments; and the operation of the Civilian War Services Division.

DIVProvides new understanding of Franklin Roosevelt's involvement in the Spanish Civil War, claiming that he was activist and pro-Loyalist./div

History is an account, either verbal or written, which describes past events, good or bad. In truth, most recorded history is a mostly false narrative of mostly unimportant occurrences which are the doings of czars, despots, and tyrants and their lackey soldiers. For the most part, right or wrong, history has always been written by the winners—of whatever contest. And therefore, since the ‘losers’ are irrelevant and meaningless, it may then take society many decades, or more, to finally learn that most things were done, not really as the supporters and academics had recorded them for posterity. History is more than just learning names, dates, and places. Real history is knowing why certain events happened at a certain given time in a particular certain place. And real history is admitting that the supposedly ‘greatest’ saviors of humanity were really mankind’s ‘greatest’ purveyors of human misery.

Born in 1882 in New York, Franklin Delano Roosevelt entered public service through the encouragement of the Democratic Party and won the election to the New York Senate in 1910. This book details his administration at the height of the Great Depression as he valiantly led the nation with the phrase, The only thing we have to fear is fear itself.

This new book presents 245 in-depth and incisive book reviews about presidents and the presidency of the United States. This book is a must reference in political science, current affairs and sociology.

The debate over US involvement in World War II was a turning point in the history of both US foreign policy and radio. In this book the author argues that the debate’s historical significance cannot be fully appreciated unless these stories are understood in relation rather than in isolation. All the participants in the Great Debate took for granted the importance of radio and made it central to their efforts. While they generally worked within radio’s rules, they also tried to work around or even break those rules, setting the stage for changes that ultimately altered the way media managed American political discourse. This study breaks with traditional accounts that see radio as an industry biased in favor of interventionism. Rather, radio fully aired the opposing positions in the debate. It nonetheless failed to resolve fully their differences. Despite the initial enthusiasm for radio’s educational potential, participants on both sides came to doubt their conviction that radio could change minds. Radio increasingly became a tool to rally existing supporters more than to recruit new ones. Only events ended the debate over US involvement in World War II. The larger question—of what role the US should play in world affairs—remained.

No modern president has had as much influence on American national politics as Franklin D. Roosevelt. During FDR’s administration, power shifted from states and localities to the federal government; within the federal government it shifted from Congress to the president; and internationally, it moved from Europe to the United States. All of these changes required significant effort on the part of the president, who triumphed over fierce opposition and succeeded in remaking the American political system in ways that continue to shape our politics today. Using the metaphor of the good neighbor, Mary E. Stuckey examines the persuasive work that took place to authorize these changes. Through the metaphor, FDR’s administration can be better understood: his emphasis on communal values; the importance of national mobilization in domestic as well as foreign affairs in defense of those values; his use of what he considered a particularly democratic approach to public communication; his treatment of friends and his delineation of enemies; and finally, the ways in which he used this rhetoric to broaden his neighborhood from the limits of the United States to encompass the entire world, laying the groundwork for American ideological dominance in the post–World War II era.

The 1932 election of Franklin Delano Roosevelt seemed to hold the promise of Democratic domination for years to come. However, leading up to the 1936 election, persistent economic problems, a controversial domestic agenda, and the perception of a weak foreign policy were chipping away at public support. The president faced unrelenting criticism from both the Left and the Right, and it seemed unlikely that he would cruise to the same clear victory he enjoyed in 1932. But 1936 was yet another landslide win for FDR, which makes it easy to forget just how contested the campaign was. In Voting Deliberatively, Mary Stuckey examines little-discussed components of FDR’s 1936 campaign that aided his victory. She reveals four elements of this reelection campaign that have not received adequate attention: the creation of public opinion, the attention paid to local organizations, the focus on specific kinds of interests, and the public rhetoric that tied it all together. Previous studies of the 1936 presidential election discuss elements such as FDR’s vulnerability before the campaign and the weakness of Republican candidate Alf Landon. But these histories pay little attention to the quantity and quality of information Roosevelt acquired, the importance of organizations such as the Good Neighbor League and the Committee of One, the mobilization of the vote, and the ways in which these organizational strategies fused with Roosevelt’s rhetorical strategies. Stuckey shows how these facets combined in one of the largest victories in Electoral College history and provided a template for future victory.

The fascinating story of Franklin Roosevelt, the Greatest Generation, and the freedoms they won, is a “stirring, heady dose of American history by a…progressive thinker” (Kirkus Reviews). On January 6, 1941, the Greatest Generation gave voice to its founding principles, the Four Freedoms: Freedom from want and from fear. Freedom of speech and religion. In the name of the Four Freedoms they fought the Great Depression. In the name of the Four Freedoms they defeated the Axis powers. In the process they made the United States the richest and most powerful country on Earth. And, despite a powerful, reactionary opposition, the men and women of the Greatest Generation made America freer, more equal, and more democratic than ever before. Harvey Kaye gives passionate voice to the Greatest Generation and argues not only that the root of their “greatness” stemmed from their commitment to equality, change, and progressive politics, but why modern generations should follow their lead. In Kaye’s hands, history becomes a call for action. Now he retells this generation’s full story and reclaims their progressive influence throughout the twentieth century. Through the words of civil rights protestors, authors, and congressmen, Kaye argues that the most progressive generation in America history not only stopped Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy, and Imperial Japan, but made America and the world freer, more equal, and more democratic—and that modern generations only honor them by following their lead. The Fight for the Four Freedoms “will stir its intended audience, while illustrating what astute politicians and historians recognize: Political struggle is as much a battle over our past as it is over our present and future” (Cleveland Plain Dealer).

Armed interventions in Libya, Haiti, Iraq, Vietnam, and Korea challenged the US president and Congress with a core question of constitutional interpretation: does the president, or Congress, have constitutional authority to take the country to war? War Powers argues that the Constitution doesn't offer a single legal answer to that question. But its structure and values indicate a vision of a well-functioning constitutional politics, one that enables the branches of government themselves to generate good answers to this question for the circumstances of their own times. Mariah Zeisberg shows that what matters is not that the branches enact the same constitutional settlement for all conditions, but instead how well they bring their distinctive governing capacities to bear on their interpretive work in context. Because the branches legitimately approach constitutional questions in different ways, interpretive conflicts between them can sometimes indicate a successful rather than deficient interpretive politics. Zeisberg argues for a set of distinctive constitutional standards for evaluating the branches and their relationship to one another, and she demonstrates how observers and officials can use those standards to evaluate the branches' constitutional politics. With cases ranging from the Mexican War and World War II to the Cold War, Cuban Missile Crisis, and Iran-Contra scandal, War Powers reinterprets central controversies of war powers scholarship and advances a new way of evaluating the constitutional behavior of officials outside of the judiciary.