What do you think?
Rate this book
Freedom Betrayed: Herbert Hoover's Secret History of the Second World War and Its Aftermath
Herbert Hoover's "magnum opus"--at last published nearly fifty years after its completion--offers a revisionist reexamination of World War II and its cold war aftermath and a sweeping indictment of the "lost statesmanship" of Franklin Roosevelt. Hoover offers his frank evaluation of Roosevelt's foreign policies before Pearl Harbor and policies during the war, as well as an examination of the war's consequences, including the expansion of the Soviet empire at war's end and the eruption of the cold war against the Communists.
1105 pages, Kindle Edition
First published July 15, 2011
92 people are currently reading
592 people want to read
About the author
George H. Nash
18 books22 followersGeorge H. Nash is an American historian and interpreter of American conservatism. He is a biographer of Herbert Hoover. He is best known for The Conservative Intellectual Movement in America Since 1945, which first appeared in 1976 and has been twice revised and expanded.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 14 of 14 reviews
December 11, 2012
This is a very entertaining book. While Hoover presents his case that war never should have come to the USA, some of his writing is rather deceptive.
Ch 41 really bother me. Hoover mentions Pearl Harbor, the date the USA declared war on Japan and the date the USA declared war on Germany. But he left out a key date, Germany declared war on the USA before we declared war on Germany. He also presents counts for Allied naval ships sunk by July 1942 yet there is NO mention of Midway and he says the Japanese losses were trivial up to that date. How can the sinking of 4 IJN fleet carriers become trivial losses?
Hoover is a strident anti-Communist and has major problems with the USA and UK allying with the USSR. He states many times that the western democracies should have let the Nazis and Communists fight it out with winner take all. Why? Because he somehow feels that Germany dominating all of Europe and USSR could not hurt the USA across the wide oceans. Some of this is down right scary given that Germany controlling all those resources could have developed an atomic bomb and eventually delivered it to the USA.
He does make it very clear the FDR talked non-intervention prior to the 1940 election and then did a lot of things to get the USA into the war. Some of them were illegal but Congress appeared to look the other way.
Another area where his statements actually made me laugh out loud is his talk of "Free China" as if the Nationalists were magically a good government just because they opposed the "hated" communists.
Hoover also gives all credit for advances in the Pacific to MacArthur, no the USN, perhaps because Mac was another strident anticommunist.
After reading the book, I understand why it was not published during Hoover's lifetime. Far too much of the contents are poor history.
Ch 41 really bother me. Hoover mentions Pearl Harbor, the date the USA declared war on Japan and the date the USA declared war on Germany. But he left out a key date, Germany declared war on the USA before we declared war on Germany. He also presents counts for Allied naval ships sunk by July 1942 yet there is NO mention of Midway and he says the Japanese losses were trivial up to that date. How can the sinking of 4 IJN fleet carriers become trivial losses?
Hoover is a strident anti-Communist and has major problems with the USA and UK allying with the USSR. He states many times that the western democracies should have let the Nazis and Communists fight it out with winner take all. Why? Because he somehow feels that Germany dominating all of Europe and USSR could not hurt the USA across the wide oceans. Some of this is down right scary given that Germany controlling all those resources could have developed an atomic bomb and eventually delivered it to the USA.
He does make it very clear the FDR talked non-intervention prior to the 1940 election and then did a lot of things to get the USA into the war. Some of them were illegal but Congress appeared to look the other way.
Another area where his statements actually made me laugh out loud is his talk of "Free China" as if the Nationalists were magically a good government just because they opposed the "hated" communists.
Hoover also gives all credit for advances in the Pacific to MacArthur, no the USN, perhaps because Mac was another strident anticommunist.
After reading the book, I understand why it was not published during Hoover's lifetime. Far too much of the contents are poor history.
March 18, 2015
A long time goal of the communist is to infiltrate the education system. Read this book and ask why you were never taught the context of events that led up to what we know as WWII. The proof is in the outcome. The war was fought in defense of communism. The cost was born by taxpayers of the United States. Hoover lays it out how it all happened.
September 16, 2016
Human beings are far better at identifying mistakes in our opponents than in ourselves. Herbert Hoover exemplifies this tendency in his final book, Freedom Betrayed, which he wrote over two decades. He finished it in 1963 and intended to publish it, but died in 1964 at age 90. His heirs decided to put the manuscript in storage for nearly half a century until 2011.
The 900-page tome covers familiar history, and defends Hoover's positions at the time, such as his opposition to FDR's 1933 recognition of the USSR. I don't recall any place in the book, however, where Hoover reassesses his anti-interventionist position, recognizing where he might have been even slightly off base. On the other hand, he gives Roosevelt little credit for doing anything well, instead devoting most of the book to critiquing FDR's foreign policy as well as Truman’s.
Hoover’s views on FDR and our entry into WWII will be familiar to those who have read the revisionist historians who critiqued Roosevelt’s leadership decades ago. Hoover marshals considerable evidence for assertions that aren't that controversial:
1) Our war with Japan could have been avoided.
2) FDR's unconditional surrender policy prolonged the war.
3) Concessions to Stalin to get the USSR to declare war on Japan proved unnecessary.
Hoover also believed Britain and France would've stayed out of the war but for London's blunder of guaranteeing Poland, which FDR urged Chamberlain to do, per Ambassador Kennedy, while Amb. Bullit, US ambassador to France, discouraged the Poles from negotiating with the Germans.
Hoover calls the guarantee "probably the biggest blunder in the whole history of European power diplomacy. Britain and France were helpless to save Poland. By this act, they threw the bodies of democracy between Hitler and Stalin."
It’s remarkable that more than 60 years after the attack on Pearl Harbor, most Americans have little understanding about why the smaller Asian nation would’ve launched a war they had little hope of winning, and whether the war was unnecessary. Hoover was positive that the war in the Pacific could've been averted had it not been for FDR's "lost statesmanship" in deliberately provoking the war. He quotes extensively from diplomatic dispatches and the diary of Joseph Grew, the U.S. Ambassador to Japan prior to Pearl Harbor.
As the dispatches make clear, Ambassador Grew made every effort to seek a diplomatic resolution of disagreements with Tokyo. Grew nearly begged Washington to respond to the unprecedented offer to personally meet with FDR to reach agreement from Prime Minister Fumimaro Konoye in 1941.
The British Ambassdor to Japan, Sir Robert Craigie, sent London a strong recommendation for the meeting as the last best chance for peace. The offer was rejected, with the predictable consequence of the fall of the Konoye government and its replacement by the militarists.
Hoover makes a persuasive, though hardly original, case that the Roosevelt administration scapegoated Admiral Kimmel and General Short, the commanders at Pearl Harbor, for the our huge losses in the attack. FDR’s performance at the Teheran and Yalta conferences come under the well worn criticism for purportedly giving major concessions to Stalin.
Hoover contends it was not necessary to drop the atomic bombs. He points out that Truman had been repeatedly urged to guarantee the emperor would be protected to hasten Japanese surrender.
That advice came from Hoover himself during a meeting with Truman at the end of May 1045.
Under Secretary of State Joseph Grew likewise urged Truman to make a public statement about preserving the Imperial House, and had the support of General Marshall, Secretary Forrestal, and Secretary Stimson.
Truman rejected this advice, however, and at the end of the Potsdam Conference issued an ultimatum calling for unconditional surrender, promising "stern justice" to war criminals. "We finally conceded this (the Emperor's survival) after hundreds of thousands of human lives had been sacrificed."
General MacArthur said "the imminent collapse of Japan was clearly apparent several months before Yalta when we seized the Philippines. Gen. Curtis LeMay said on Sept. 25, 1945, “The atomic bomb had nothing to do with the end of the war. The war would have been over in two weeks without the Russians coming in and without the atomic bomb." On Oct. 5, 1945, Admiral Nimitz said, "The atomic bomb did not win the war. The Japanese had, in fact, already sued for peace before the destruction of Hiroshima."
This book is interesting because of its author and because of its delayed publication, not because of its new interpretations and insights. It nevertheless invites readers to consider what mistakes the United States made in a war that we won. ###
The 900-page tome covers familiar history, and defends Hoover's positions at the time, such as his opposition to FDR's 1933 recognition of the USSR. I don't recall any place in the book, however, where Hoover reassesses his anti-interventionist position, recognizing where he might have been even slightly off base. On the other hand, he gives Roosevelt little credit for doing anything well, instead devoting most of the book to critiquing FDR's foreign policy as well as Truman’s.
Hoover’s views on FDR and our entry into WWII will be familiar to those who have read the revisionist historians who critiqued Roosevelt’s leadership decades ago. Hoover marshals considerable evidence for assertions that aren't that controversial:
1) Our war with Japan could have been avoided.
2) FDR's unconditional surrender policy prolonged the war.
3) Concessions to Stalin to get the USSR to declare war on Japan proved unnecessary.
Hoover also believed Britain and France would've stayed out of the war but for London's blunder of guaranteeing Poland, which FDR urged Chamberlain to do, per Ambassador Kennedy, while Amb. Bullit, US ambassador to France, discouraged the Poles from negotiating with the Germans.
Hoover calls the guarantee "probably the biggest blunder in the whole history of European power diplomacy. Britain and France were helpless to save Poland. By this act, they threw the bodies of democracy between Hitler and Stalin."
It’s remarkable that more than 60 years after the attack on Pearl Harbor, most Americans have little understanding about why the smaller Asian nation would’ve launched a war they had little hope of winning, and whether the war was unnecessary. Hoover was positive that the war in the Pacific could've been averted had it not been for FDR's "lost statesmanship" in deliberately provoking the war. He quotes extensively from diplomatic dispatches and the diary of Joseph Grew, the U.S. Ambassador to Japan prior to Pearl Harbor.
As the dispatches make clear, Ambassador Grew made every effort to seek a diplomatic resolution of disagreements with Tokyo. Grew nearly begged Washington to respond to the unprecedented offer to personally meet with FDR to reach agreement from Prime Minister Fumimaro Konoye in 1941.
The British Ambassdor to Japan, Sir Robert Craigie, sent London a strong recommendation for the meeting as the last best chance for peace. The offer was rejected, with the predictable consequence of the fall of the Konoye government and its replacement by the militarists.
Hoover makes a persuasive, though hardly original, case that the Roosevelt administration scapegoated Admiral Kimmel and General Short, the commanders at Pearl Harbor, for the our huge losses in the attack. FDR’s performance at the Teheran and Yalta conferences come under the well worn criticism for purportedly giving major concessions to Stalin.
Hoover contends it was not necessary to drop the atomic bombs. He points out that Truman had been repeatedly urged to guarantee the emperor would be protected to hasten Japanese surrender.
That advice came from Hoover himself during a meeting with Truman at the end of May 1045.
Under Secretary of State Joseph Grew likewise urged Truman to make a public statement about preserving the Imperial House, and had the support of General Marshall, Secretary Forrestal, and Secretary Stimson.
Truman rejected this advice, however, and at the end of the Potsdam Conference issued an ultimatum calling for unconditional surrender, promising "stern justice" to war criminals. "We finally conceded this (the Emperor's survival) after hundreds of thousands of human lives had been sacrificed."
General MacArthur said "the imminent collapse of Japan was clearly apparent several months before Yalta when we seized the Philippines. Gen. Curtis LeMay said on Sept. 25, 1945, “The atomic bomb had nothing to do with the end of the war. The war would have been over in two weeks without the Russians coming in and without the atomic bomb." On Oct. 5, 1945, Admiral Nimitz said, "The atomic bomb did not win the war. The Japanese had, in fact, already sued for peace before the destruction of Hiroshima."
This book is interesting because of its author and because of its delayed publication, not because of its new interpretations and insights. It nevertheless invites readers to consider what mistakes the United States made in a war that we won. ###
February 4, 2017
The last mention of Herbert Hoover in most history textbooks is his defeat at the hands of Franklin D. Roosevelt in the 1932 presidential election. For as little attention as Hoover’s post-presidential career receives, he may as well have died quietly the day after his electoral defeat. But he didn’t. Rather, Hoover spent the remaining 32 years of his life actively involved in humanitarian work, domestic politics and international relations. Already a critic of FDR’s New Deal, Hoover recognized in the late 1930s that Europe was on the path to war, a war that Hoover argued the United States should stay out of. Although Hoover failed in his endeavor to keep the U.S. out of World War II, he immediately began to document FDR’s failed diplomacy in Europe and the Pacific leading up to the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. As the war progressed, he continued to document the diplomatic failures of first Roosevelt’s administration, and then Harry Truman’s. The result of all this work was Hoover’s multi-volume history of World War II and its aftermath, Freedom Betrayed. Hoover worked on the book for over 20 years, beginning immediately after Pearl Harbor and lasting until his death in 1962. It would take another 49 years, and a dedicated scholar named George Nash, for Hoover’s book to be published. But it was worth the wait. With meticulous documentation, Hoover shows how the U.S. first botched multiple chances to avoid the war and then emboldened communists in Russia and China with its diplomacy during it. For anyone interested in a fuller understanding of World War II and the origins of the Cold War, Freedom Betrayed is an invaluable resource.
January 10, 2015
I highly recommend this book. It is the memoirs of Herbert Hoover. In the book, he covers another side to the events leading up to World War II and our nation's time throughout the 1940s and early 1950s. It is remarkable to note the spread of communism detailed within the book from before WWII to the end of the Korean War. It also addresses the relationships and meetings between FDR, Churchill, Stalin, and Chiang Kai-shek. It discusses the many charters that we created to thwart the Nazi party and it's Nationalistic ways. It also goes on to talk about how some of those charters magically disappeared once Communism started gaining power. History drives so much our today’s National Security. This is a great book to read before heading to Stanford at the end of this month. -Nate
February 24, 2016
A well written book that remained hidden in Hoover's Library for almost 50 years. I'm not sure why Hoover spent so many years writing something that he didn't want read. I'm not sure I agree with Hoover that if we had stayed out of the war, Germany would have only moved East and avoided a western war with England and France. Hitler, I believe wanted all of Europe.
September 19, 2015
I read about a 1/3 of this book a couple of years ago. Hoover does not give much background to World War II he dives right into his analysis. I picked this book up after having a broader knowledge of World War II and its causes and was able to quickly digest it. Hoover's premise is that FDR's statesmanship not only entered us into a unnecessary war but allying with the Soviet Union was the wrong thing to do. Hoover puts forth the idea that the US should have stayed out of the European War and let the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany fight it out. Then the USA and Britain could have easily handled the winner. His conclusion is that by fighting alongside Stalin we sacrificed a 1/3 of the population to live under Communist rule. He was disgusted by Soviet appeasement after the Tehran and Yalta conferences. Hoover does not put forth that World War II was the good fight that most Roosevelt supporters like to put forward but contends that Roosevelt's poor statesmanship lost us the peace.
August 28, 2013
This book is a tome! I highly doubt I will finish this book, but I'll still learn a great deal. I'm very interested in Hoover because he seems a mysterious figure, not much is known about him, but I've already learned that after his presidency he was very involved in public life and heartily disapproved of Roosevelt's policies. He was also great friends with Rose Wilder Lane and discussed politics for several decades. Because of this relationship her papers are kept with his at the Hoover Library in Iowa.
April 7, 2020
Perfectly Researched and Alternative View
Freedom Betrayed is an alternative view of the political events of WWII told through in-depth research, speeches and congressional reports. It perfectly lays out the how and why of the advent of the “Iron Curtain” and rise of Red China. A must-read for any student of history.
Freedom Betrayed is an alternative view of the political events of WWII told through in-depth research, speeches and congressional reports. It perfectly lays out the how and why of the advent of the “Iron Curtain” and rise of Red China. A must-read for any student of history.
Want to read
January 4, 2012Oh my goodness, why does it cost so much?!!! Lot's of money for a book that was written 50 years ago.
Written by Hoover himself.
Heard about it on http://www.lewrockwell.com/lewrockwel...
Written by Hoover himself.
Heard about it on http://www.lewrockwell.com/lewrockwel...
February 7, 2019
We always hear about how FDR was our greatest President because he led the "Greatest Generation" through World War II. The more and more that I read about him the more I see through this facade. This book should be read with an open mind and realize that it is well thought out.
April 20, 2022
Outstanding
July 9, 2021
Pros:
-very readable;
-organized in a crisp and accessible manner, with short sections that make reading large chunks very easy (rather like a John Grisham novel);
-he covers WW2 from a much more negative vantage point than is normally presented, making it an intriguing read if nothing else, and this unusual vantage allows Hoover the chance to highlight facts that aren't normally given much attention (like the US deciding on a massive increase in its naval power in the Pacific at the same time that it decided to embargo most of Japan's oil supply).
Cons:
-the book is rabidly, comically anti-communist, which detracts from a lot of the analysis, for instance Hoover falsely equating Hitler with Stalin as if Fascists and Communists were on the same moral playing field;
-the sources Hoover uses are somewhat limited, relying on a lot of magazine/newspaper articles rather than archives or personal correspondences;
-although Hoover keeps hammering away at the idea that FDR wanted war, he doesn't really provide an adequate explanation as to why this was so, why the president was so warlike.
Overall: definitely worth a look, because despite its limitations and faults, it's an easy, relatively quick read that discusses a familiar topic from an unfamiliar point of view.
-very readable;
-organized in a crisp and accessible manner, with short sections that make reading large chunks very easy (rather like a John Grisham novel);
-he covers WW2 from a much more negative vantage point than is normally presented, making it an intriguing read if nothing else, and this unusual vantage allows Hoover the chance to highlight facts that aren't normally given much attention (like the US deciding on a massive increase in its naval power in the Pacific at the same time that it decided to embargo most of Japan's oil supply).
Cons:
-the book is rabidly, comically anti-communist, which detracts from a lot of the analysis, for instance Hoover falsely equating Hitler with Stalin as if Fascists and Communists were on the same moral playing field;
-the sources Hoover uses are somewhat limited, relying on a lot of magazine/newspaper articles rather than archives or personal correspondences;
-although Hoover keeps hammering away at the idea that FDR wanted war, he doesn't really provide an adequate explanation as to why this was so, why the president was so warlike.
Overall: definitely worth a look, because despite its limitations and faults, it's an easy, relatively quick read that discusses a familiar topic from an unfamiliar point of view.
August 4, 2017
Great piece of work documenting a view of WWII that isn't commonly taught.
Displaying 1 - 14 of 14 reviews