-
PLEASE POST BELOW IF YOU CAN JOIN US in SEPTEMBER
Berlin 1961 by Frederick Kempe
(http://seniorlearn.org/bookclubs/berlin1961/berlin1961cvr.jpg) |
JOIN US in September as we renew our history, a more accurate history, of events that most of us remember very well. Historians are now able to not only do research into fresh new documents, but personal interviews have uncovered a wealth of information that is stunning to read. A young, untested, wealthy, U.S. president meets a Russian premier, son of a coal miner; Kennedy and Khrushchev, opposite in every way, yet holding the world in their hands. It's drama at the very best.
President Kennedy called the year a "string of disasters;" Kempe called it one of the worst of any modern presidency.
The book is divided into three parts: THE PLAYERS, THE GATHERING STORM AND THE SHOWDOWN.
Fascinating history, dramatic with new research into documents never before explored. |
The Players
(http://seniorlearn.org/bookclubs/berlin1961/khrushchev%20(159x230).jpg) (http://seniorlearn.org/bookclubs/berlin1961/ulbricht%20(151x230).jpg) (http://seniorlearn.org/bookclubs/berlin1961/kennedy%20(148x230).jpg) (http://seniorlearn.org/bookclubs/berlin1961/Adenauer%20(153x230).jpg)
Left to right: Krushchev - Ulbricht - Kennedy - Adenauer
Discussion Schedule
Sept 1-8 Part I
Sept 9-16 Part II
Sept 17-30 Part III and Epilogue
Related links:
Frederick Kempe's home page (http://fredkempe.com/);
New York Times Book Review (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/12/books/review/book-review-berlin-1961-by-frederick-kempe.html);
Discussion Leaders: Ella (egibbons28@columbus.rr.com) & Harold (hhullar5@yahoo.com)
-
Where were you in 1961? Growing up, in college, raising children, reading the headlines. You will recognize the figures in this story, but not the details and it is all in the details, the secret meetings, the dangerous diplomacy between two nuclear countries. The book is so readable, it could be fiction.
WE HOPE YOU JOIN US IN SEPTEMBER.
WELCOME TO ALL!
-
“Berlin, 1961” by Frederick Kempe is about one of the 4 or 5 major East/West cold war confrontations that kept the world on pins and needles during the several decades following the end of WW II. Certainly many of you, like me will enjoy this reading that is sure to bring back personal recollections of the event. For me I remember waking up one Sunday morning to read in that day's San Antonio Light newspaper that the Russians had started building a concrete wall closing the border between East and West Berlin.
All of you are invited to join us in a dissuasion of this event as detailed in this book that will begin September first and continue through the month of September. Ella and I hope you will be here.
-
Please count me in.
Sheila
-
Yes
-
SHEILA AND KIDSAL!
Wonderful, good start! Thanks for posting.
In regard to Harold's post, I don't remember the "building" of the wall and none of the events surrounding it. I do have memories of that period which we can get into later. We all remember President Reagan and when the Wall came down.
-
Thank you SHEILA AND KIDSAL. It's been a long time since we had a discus-ion on a Cold War event and I think this is a great book for this event. We should have at least three of four more to make an active discussion . Any one Else? You are welcome to join.
-
This looks like a splendid selection to read and talk about. Count me in.
-
Thank you Jonathon, glad to have you back.
You know now I'm thinking this may be the first Cold War Event we have discussed in our Seniornet/books, Seniorlearn past?
-
Thanks for your interest, JONATHAN!
Yes, HAROLD, I do believe it is the first Cold War event and the animosity, suspicion between the Soviet Union and the USA. We've discussed Kennedy in another book once upon a time but not in connection with his first year in office and the disastrous errors that were made.
Memories of that era - we could talk in generalities without ever opening the book. Krushchev pounding the table at the UN, promising to bury America. What year was that visit? I remember his disappointment at not being allowed to visit Disneyworld in California (I believe, or is that a false memory?).
WHAT ARE YOUR MEMORIES OF THE ERA, ANYONE?
-
It was in 1960 that Krushchev made that visit to the UN - here is more than you will ever want to know about the man:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikita_Khrushchev
However, it is a good picture of him. While skimming the article I thought this paragraph interesting:
"While visiting the United States in 1959, Khrushchev was greatly impressed by the agricultural education program at Iowa State University, and sought to imitate it in the Soviet Union. At the time, the main agricultural college in the USSR was in Moscow, and students did not do the manual labor of farming. Khrushchev proposed to move the programs to rural areas. He was unsuccessful, due to resistance from professors and students, who never actually disagreed with the premier, but who did not carry out his proposals.[167] Khrushchev recalled in his memoirs, "It's nice to live in Moscow and work at the Timiryazev Agricultural Academy. It's a venerable old institution, a large economic unit, with skilled instructors, but it's in the city! Its students aren't yearning to work on the collective farms because to do that they'd have to go out in the provinces and live in the sticks."[168]
It was in the CITY!
-
I didn't want to commit myself until I got a look at the book. I've now gotten ahold of the last available copy in my library system. It looks good, so I'll join you in September.
-
That's great, Pat! Welcome and I do hope no one gets discouraged at the size of the book. There are about 20 pages of photos in the center of it and about 70 pages of notes at the end of it.
And besides that, it is in bold, rather large print, and very, VERY READABLE.
I watched a DVD the other day - THIRTEEN DAYS - the story of the Cuban Missile Crisis and the decisions of President Kennedy.
In many ways, Krushchev had the courage to put those nuclear missiles in Cuba because of his perception of Kennedy, which is explained in this book.
-
Yes, it reads right along, reasonably speedy going. I'm looking forward to being reminded of a lot of things, as well as learning a lot more stuff I didn't know.
-
My library doesn't have the book, but i've got enough time for an interlibrary loan.
My favorite Berlin story is the Truman airlift. I told it frequently to my history students. PBS did a wonderful documentary which included talking to people who were children who watched the planes and waited for the candy dropping from the planes.
Jean
-
Oh, that's good, JEAN! Yes, you have time to get the book. We'll be dividing it up into weeks soon, so don't read too far ahead.
You hear that, PAT!!
-
Imagine that. Candy falling from the sky. That memory would stay with one.
Do we have a quorum? Is it on? I put a reserve on the book at my library, and then later had a look at it in the store and bought it. See you all at Checkpoint Charlie.
-
I think so, JONATHAN! I count six of us so far and I think there may be more as time goes on, don't you?
Of course, this book is a singular year, 1961, but what memories it recalls.
The Cold War it went on for some 30 years didn't it? Who named it the Cold War?
And didn't CIVIL DEFENSE SHELTERS signs go up on buildings. I have a vague memory, or am I being too fancifal, of yellow and black signs tacked on certain places in the neighborhood.
And certainly some folks considered building an underground family shelter. My neighbor did. What conversations we had over the whole issue!
-
I suppose 6 active participants will be enough, but I had hoped for more. We started out with twice that number in the recent Summer Moon discussion. Hopefully we can still pick up several more who will certainly be welcome.
Regarding the Berlin airlift that came earlier in 1948 49, for almost a year the Western allies were forced to supply West Berlin by Air. All the Food, energy (Coal) and other necessities needed by the West sectors of Berlin were delivered by a continuing succession of allied cargo planes. In some ways this crisis was more dangerous than our 1961 discussion crisis, in others less. It was more dangerous because Joseph Stalin and his massive WW II army was still around. On the other hand the Russians had not yet developed their atom bomb. It was this weakness that caused the Russians to finally reopen the Highway and Rail access from the west after nearly a year of Blockade.
One of the aircraft used by the U.S. was the C-47 Transport that had been the backbone of the U.S. WW II Air cargo capability. I remember being a passenger on a C-47 taking me from the Philippines to Peleu Island in July 1945. It was a bumpy flight with passengers in bucket seats. We cane within sight of the Jap Naval Base on Yap but at that time the base had been all but obliterated by air strikes and at that time the surrender negotiations were in progress. I was on Peleu only a few days during which I wandered the year old beach battle site before being sent on to Ulithi on a destroyer escort .
-
What a confrontation that Berlin airlift was. I was too young to go soldiering in WWII. By 1948-49 it looked like I was going to get my chance. The Cold War was underway. The next forty years now seem like an endless crisis. No one on earth was left unaffected as the world's two superpowers contested the destiny of that world.
Ella, our book tells us that it was Walter Lippmann who coined the phrase Cold War. We get to hear how he spent a day with Krushchev at K's Black Sea lair. In 1961. We also read that Lippmann advised President Woodrow Wilson and was himself a delegate to the 1919 Paris Peace Conference! The book is full of high drama.
-
Thanks, JONATHAN!
-
Book arrived. Pictures bring back memories.
-
Comments from another book about the Wall, from my History News Network.
http://hnn.us/articles/8-8-11/berlinwall.html
Jean
-
Very interesting, Jean. Thanks for the link. I've bookmarked that site. Doing history, as someone has said, is fun. Making it, of course, can be harrowing, as we shall find out.
And so the Berlin Wall takes its place in history. Along with those other relics of other times, like the Wall of China, and the one Hadrian put up across England's fair and pleasant land to keep out the enemy two thousand years ago.
I like the last line of the article:
'Through it we remember the Cold War, that remote era of peace and fear.'
It seems like only yesterday. BERLIN 1961, I'm sure, will be as interesting and meaningful as PARIS 1919. And the photo sections are impressive. What a reception Kennedy got in Berlin. Greater even than the reception Wilson got in Paris. American presidents, obviously, are very popular in Europe. Greeted like heros.
-
I'll join too.
-
It's good to see you here, Joan.
It's fifty years today that the Wall went up in Berlin. With hindsight that seems to have been a strategic blunder in the Cold War. But what a baptism of fire for a new president.
-
I ordered a book-book, rather than getting it on my kindle, since pictures don't come out well on the kindle.
-
I will be joining you. Our library has lots of copies.
Carolyn
-
OH, THIS IS WONDERFUL. JOANK AND CAROLYN!
WE WILL BE POSTING A SCHEDULE SOON SO WATCH THE HEADING! THE PICTURES IN THE BOOK ARE GREAT AREN'T THEY?
We could list walls throughout history meant to keep people in or people out - biblical walls, etc. etc.,, Jonathan mentioned one - ---- the Great Wall of China. Walls, walls, interesting.
There is an article by George Will in the Washington Post this morning about our book. I haven't read it yet, just going out the door for errands, hoping to do so before the rains come. Will be back later.
So happy to see we have a good group to discuss the book!!!!
-
Welcome Carolyn and JoanK. The two of you will bring our group to 8, a nice size for a discussion. Also I like the fact that we will be an international group from New Zealand , Canada and the U.S.
-
What a fine group coming together for this book.
I've just read the George Will article in the Washington Post, mentioned by Ella in her post. That's a must read. It ruffles a lot of feathers judging by the critical replies posted. I got a bit angry myself. Will's outrageous statements turn into an incentive to read the book.
I came across another internet link to the Berlin Wall phenomenon. From Der Spiegel, and on a lighter note:
http://www.spiegel.de/international/spiegel/0,1518,778941,00.html
Still brooding over what I read. Wasn't Lincoln's first year a greater disaster than Kennedy's?
-
WOW!
After the Berlin wall went down, you could buy "genuine" pieces of it in department stores. I still have one. Don't know if I ever want it tested to see if it's really genuine or not.
-
Just finished reading In the garden of Beasts a non fiction about the rise of the Nazi regime so it will be good to read about the events post war leading up the building of the wall.
Carolyn
-
What a question, JONATHAN! It boggles the mind. Write the book, we'll discuss it!
I had no idea, JOANK, that pieces of the Berlin wall were selling in stores. I saw a big block of it, original graffiti and all , in 1992 at an International Floral Show that was held for the first time in our biggest city park, a beautiful display from around the world and Germany had this block of the wall there; I stood in front of it for a long time thinking of how those penned on the wrong side of it must have longed to escape. The floral show was a huge financial disaster for the city but beautiful, just magnificent, for some of us. I wished afterwards that I had gone every day; I took some pictures but I have no idea where they are!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AmeriFlora_'92
I think Germany should hold onto as many pieces of it as possible for future generations. Aren't they contemplating a museum of the wall? Did I read that somewhere?
I read that book also, CAROLYN, it was a good one.
-
I copied this item from somewhere in the Internet but through carelessness I have lost the reference.
"Based on the number of overnight stays, Berlin surpassed Rome last year and is now Europe's third-most popular tourist destination. "Berliners haven't quite caught on to the fact that they are now playing in the same league with London and Paris," says Burkhard Kieker, the city's tourism director. The visitors are especially interested in the partition of Germany. Many would prefer to see the Wall in its undamaged original state, complete with all the structural details of the horrors associated with it. Kieker is well aware of how politically explosive a rebuilt section of the Wall would be. Nevertheless, he says, "that sort of thing would be a tremendous attraction."
GOOD GRIEF, THEY WOULDN'T DARE DO THAT, WOULD THEY?
-
I've just started this book and am finding it so interesting. Already it has provoked my interest in reading some other books on people and events mentioned. There is a nice bibliography which is helpful. I want to read Khrushchev's Memoirs and the book about him by his son, Sergei.
Marj
-
Perhaps they should have left a couple of hundred feet of the wall when they obliterated it in 1990 as an historical site. I personally would see nothing wrong with rebuilding a short section for that purpose.
I remember watching the news TV pictures in 1989 with thousand of Germans on top of the wall demanding its destruction. Remembering Karl Marx theory, it occurred to me as I watched that I was witnessing an event not anticipated by Marx- the second rising of the proletariat. It was in fact a revolutionary event that in the course of the next year reversed the history of the preceding 70 years. If I remember it right it was Jan 1, 1991 when the Soviet Union went out of existence and the Cold War was over.
-
I took out my piece of the Berlin Wall yesterday, and held it in my hand. just a crumbled piece, but it gave me chills.
-
Funny, Joan, I did the same thing with my piece. I don't see why it shouldn't be genuine. There must have been huge piles of the rubble lying around. It would have been pretty easy to take a lot of big hunks and chop them up into little pieces.
-
I was just going to tell Joan to copyright her evocative expression of holding a bit of history in her hand. Very moving. And now I see that Pat also has a piece of The Wall. Did you have strong feelings about the wall?
After reading Harold's post I found myself wondering how Karl Marx would have felt about the wall. I can also imagine Khruschev damning it after it had wrecked his career.
-
The Book Club Online is the oldest book club on the Internet, begun in 1996, open to everyone. We offer cordial discussions of one book a month, 24/7 and enjoy the company of readers from all over the world. everyone is welcome to join in.
Berlin 1961 by Frederick Kempe
(http://seniorlearn.org/bookclubs/berlin1961/berlin1961cvr.jpg) |
JOIN US in September as we renew our history, a more accurate history, of events that most of us remember very well. Historians are now able to not only do research into fresh new documents, but personal interviews have uncovered a wealth of information that is stunning to read. A young, untested, wealthy, U.S. president meets a Russian premier, son of a coal miner; Kennedy and Khrushchev, opposite in every way, yet holding the world in their hands. It's drama at the very best.
President Kennedy called the year a "string of disasters;" Kempe called it one of the worst of any modern presidency.
The book is divided into three parts: THE PLAYERS, THE GATHERING STORM AND THE SHOWDOWN.
Fascinating history, dramatic with new research into documents never before explored. |
The Players
(http://seniorlearn.org/bookclubs/berlin1961/khrushchev%20(159x230).jpg) (http://seniorlearn.org/bookclubs/berlin1961/ulbricht%20(151x230).jpg) (http://seniorlearn.org/bookclubs/berlin1961/kennedy%20(148x230).jpg) (http://seniorlearn.org/bookclubs/berlin1961/Adenauer%20(153x230).jpg)
Left to right: Krushchev - Ulbricht - Kennedy - Adenauer
Discussion Schedule
Sept 1-8 Part I
Sept 9-16 Part II
Sept 17-30 Part III and Epilogue
Some Topics for Consideration
Sept 1-8 Part I
1. A few of our greatest presidents, e.g., Washington, Lincoln, FDR, found their place in history because of war. Is this a true statement? Is there a president, in your opinion, who has been a great one in time of peace?
2. Was Kennedy ill informed about the Soviet Union when running for President? Was he ill informed on foreign affairs after gaining the presidency? Who advises a new president on foreign affairs?
3. Why was it important for East Berlin to become an independent state? Why did Krushchev believe he had the power to influence the USA to accept the reality of two German states?
4. Both Eisenhower and Krushchev had a poor opinion of the new president; why?
5. If the Soviet Union should overrun Berlin, what were the options of the West?
6. If it came to a war, why did the author believe that the Soviet Union would win it?
7. President Kennedy was in very poor health. Why did he run for the office? How could we prevent a candidate from taking office who is in in poor health or should we be concerned?
8. In your opinion should the United States have flown a spy plane over Soviet territory ,(the Gary Powers incident)?
9. Kennedy stated in 1957 that the “age of Adenauer is over.” Age discrimination on his part? How did Adenauer hang on so long in power in West Berlin?
10. How did Adenauer’s beliefs and values differ from Ulbricht’s? How were they similar?
11. Adenauer learned the hard lesson of working with Krushchev from a meeting in 1955. What were the results of that meeting?
12. What was Ulbricht’s challenge to Krushchev and why was it taken seriously by the Communist leader?
13. How did China become involved with East Germany?
Related links:
Frederick Kempe's home page (http://fredkempe.com/);
New York Times Book Review (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/12/books/review/book-review-berlin-1961-by-frederick-kempe.html);
Discussion Leaders: Ella (egibbons28@columbus.rr.com) & Harold (hhullar5@yahoo.com)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As we've talking about the wall I thought you might like pictures. The block I saw at our Ameriflora had this graffitti on it and this is quite nice what Berlin has done today.
(http://dailymenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/BerlinWall.jpg)
The Berlin Wall built in 1961 - 96 mi. ll.8 feet in height
(http://www.lilano.de/catalog/images/Steelen-BerlinerMauer_20110813DSF3913.jpg)
A monument to the wall today
-
JOANK AND PATH: Do your pieces of the wall have any color of any kind on them? How big are they? It would make sense that pieces of the rubble would be collected by someone and for them to realize that they were of value to history.
-
Just a note to our good friends youwill notice our schedule is now in the heading. Don't read ahead too far or you will forget by the time Sept lst rolls around. I noticed a few leaves have already changed into fall colors, it seems impossible to believe. How quickly it all happens.
"You can't beat the weather: spring is too rainy and summer's too hot; fall is soon over and winter is not."
-
My piece is a little bigger than a walnut, almost white, and uniform in color.
-
Mine is grey rubble.
-
I have my book now. I am looking forward to our discussion.
I have been anxiously watching the Elms on my daily walks with my wee dog. Today I noticed the first sign of buds. With the polar weather we have been enduring even here in Auckland its cheering to see signs of coming Spring. Lots of bulbs out too. One garden was positively crowded with freesia in bloom. The smell was intoxicating! It was a balmy 54F today on our walk ( positively tropical LOL!) . So nice to be in double digits again! This freak weather pattern has been a real shock to the system here in Auckland.
Carolyn
-
Wow Carolyn, what a difference. Here in South Texas we are in a run of near 50 consuctive 100 plus days. This afternoon I exlpect it will each 103 F.
-
I've been thinking today of the mistakes made after WWII. Oh, if they (???) could have foreseen the future. I know Germany was divided up between the four allies but I must do some homework. How long was that division to last? Was that determined then?
And looking at the map inside the cover of our book it seems that the Soviet sector got the best of it or the most of it or am I confused? Well, yes, confused until I look a few things up.
Or perhaps someone can set me straight about how it all happened without me doing a Google search and straining my eyes?
One thing I appreciate about this book is the size of the print and the fact that it is bold; easy to read. There are many books that I pick up at my library, unless I go for the large print, that are becoming impossible for me to read.
And the author certainly kept my interest; his little stories along the way were like a little cookie after a big meal.
-
Ella- This is from memory but as I remember it was the Yalta Conference that set up the plan for a post war division of Germany in the four zones administered by the four leading allied powers. I don't think there was any automatic termination date. The occupation would end at a future date after the completion of de-Nazification by a formal; future Peace treaty ending the war. There were also complex provisions for repatriations to Russia and maybe France and other European countries. Russia immediately stripped its zone of any surviving factories and other valuables and perhaps they even were able to claim some payment from other allied administered zones. Remember Khrushchev's demands in 1961 included the Peace Treaty that would formally end the War leaving the Communist East German Regime in complete control of Berlin.
Regarding the Russian Sector I don't think it by its self was the best in as much as the better Industrial and Population centers were in the other zones. Even so in the light of post War History I think most historians today agree that Stalin did get by far the better deal from the Yalta Agreement.
-
(http://i239.photobucket.com/albums/ff125/PatriciaFHighet/IMG_1531Berlinwall.jpg)
Fragment of Berlin Wall
-
Sorry it took so long to get this up. I was on the west coast, and though I had my camera with me, I stupidly forgot to pack my rubble, so didn't have access to the fragment until now. It's not as white as it looks here--a little greyer, with a yellowish tinge on one edge. And as you can see from the bit of dust, it's crumbly.
-
Thanks, PATH, for putting the picture on. As you say the piece is crumbly; the wall was made of concrete as I believe and ist would cumble in time I suppose. Even stone would crumble in time, wouldn't it, unless reinforced with something. If the wall had lasted longer, it would have had to be repaired from time to time, or perhaps it was.
And, thanks, HAROLD, for answering my question. I remember, of course, the yalta conference; that picture of the three allied leaders in which FDR looks so ill, so thin. Certainly he had advisers with him who could have helped in the decisions made there. Historians have been so critical of that conference; in reading a bit about it Churchill certainly had the right imate of Stalin and FDR was very wrong. However, wasn't it also true that FDR was eager to have the Soviet Union join in the war against Japan and, consequently, gave in to many of his demands?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yalta_Conference
In 1943 Roosevelt had this to say about Stalin - unbelievable that he could be so wrong.
"I just have a hunch that Stalin is not that kind of a man. ... and I think that if I give him everything I possibly can and ask for nothing from him in return, noblesse oblige, he won't try to annex anything and will work with me for a world of democracy and peace."
-
We are off the subject, a few years in the past of the year 1961 which our book is about. But isn't it good, at times, to review history, we (I) forget.
-
Did FDR actually say that? I know that at Yalta he was a very sick man and as a result Churchill was powerless with respect to the German question. But he did save Greece by sending in a British force. The rest of Central Europe became Communist for the next 45 years. .
-
HAROLD, I took that post from the Wikipedia site mentioned above. I would imagine it is correct, one doesn't know if all the infro on Wikipedia is right, but I have not found to this date any errors.
-
TWO MORE DAYS UNTIL WE START OUR DISCUSSION!
I'm rather excited at the prospect of exploring with you the lives of those four men picturered above.
Leaders, whether good leaders or not, they were undoubtedly leaders. What makes a leader??? How does he get there? Why do people follow the leader? When do they quit following? Has it ever happened in America? Thoughts go on and on. Just think of the word "leader" in your mind and you will see!
-
Just started reading. Hope I can finish in time.
I was trying to remember what I was doing on New years 1961.
-
In 1961, JOANK, I was busy with two young children. My husband and I went out a couple of New Years and it seemed silly to us to do it. We sat there, rather tired, trying not to show it in front of friends, and waited until midnight so we could toot the horns the restaurant had given us. We never went out again as I remember. I know where I was though, as we lived in the same house for 50+ years. Unbelievable.
-
It seems in Moscow Khruschev could be the life of the party with his predictions/plans for the New Year. What a character. I'll bet he could be a lot of fun.
-
Yes, I agree, JONATHAN, particularlly when he had a few drinks of vodka. Tonight I'll put some topics in the heading that we might discuss in PART I of the book. We can have our own party, minus the vodka; well, I don't what all of you might be sipping tonight?????
-
GOOD MORNING EVERYONE!
I hope everyone has their book and is ready to begin our discussion!
Let's just start with Question l in the heading, an interesting question indeed.
1. A few of our greatest presidents, e.g., Washington, Lincoln, FDR, found their place in history because of war. Is this a true statement? Is there a president, in your opinion, who has been a great one in time of peace?
-
Of course, it would have to be Roosevelt, FDR. He was greater in peace than in war. His great leadership during the depressed thirties got him into his third term as president. It's scary to think of a new president contemplating war as a route to a great presidency. That's worth keeping in mind as we watch Kennedy taking on the challenge. Reading this book I'm surprised by how much of the Cold War was determined by the politics back home.
I hope this bright September morning finds all of you bright-eyed and bushy-taled (sic) and eager to recall the events of long ago. Yesterday my Canadian newspaper featured a photograph of president Kennedy planting a tree in Ottawa, just weeks before taking of for Vienna and destiny. I quote:
'Forgetting to bend at the knee, and tossing a dozen more shovelfuls of dirt onto a small red oak than was necessary, Kennedy badly wrenched his troublesome back, usdoing months of restorative exercises.'
Our book has him soaking in a hot tub at every opportunity during the trip. Ouch! The world's troubles must have seemed insignificant in painful moments.
-
Good morning! What an interesting book - promising to shed "new light on new evidence." Jonathan, you've just cited several incidents we knew nothing about. And what great photos. Easy to get lost in them. Kennedy's attempts to hide the back pain brings to mind FDR's refusal to be photographed in his wheelchair.
An interesting, but difficult first question - "did the greatest presidents find their place in history because of war?" Because of how they handled themselves in time of war? Would they have been "great" anyway - had they managed to avoid war?
Actually, I'm not sure what makes a "great" president. One who is revered as a leader? "Who has been considered "great" in time of peace," you ask? If "great" can be described as successful, then I guess I'd include Reagan, Teddy Roosevelt...Thomas Jefferson...
Interested to hear how others will answer this question.
-
We'll be discussing Kennedy's health problems later, JONATHAN, but he kept them well hidden during his brief presidency don't you think?
Yes, FDR in peacetime, what a job he did. I just read in today's paper that FDR was reelected in 1936 when unemployment was over 17% (the article was giving advice to our president in office). But often FDR is quoted both in peace and in war; more so, I believe in war. We will never see anything like WWII again, do you agree?
When I think of "great" presidents in our history I think of Washington, Lincoln, FDR, and Truman, those men who had grave decisions to make and whose decisions proved successful in times of war.
Let's not talk about LBJ and Nixon and Vietnam, that dishonorable, horrible decade.
As JOANP has questioned the adjective "great" perhaps we should define the word. Could we say those presidents whom historians have written and spoken about more than others? It seems whenever I go to a bookstore there is another book about Lincoln, for example. And if you turn on the history channel you are likely to see programs concerning America's wars, much to our regret at times. Is that a good definition?
But we come to the question of would the presidents, named above, have been such historical figures had there not been a war in their presidency?
-
We're busy here for September. But what are we going to read when this is over?
The Classics Club has a winner! Plutarch "Lives of the Noble Greeks and Romans". But our job has just started. We have to pick 4 selections to read in October. Who do you want to get to know better: Caesar? Cleopatra? Cicero? Come help us decide at
http://seniorlearn.org/forum/index.php?topic=2395.80 (http://seniorlearn.org/forum/index.php?topic=2395.80)
-
Ella and all I think we have a great discussion book here. For me FDR’s greatness came as the result of his handling of the war. Of course in March 1933 when he became President his first crisis was the economy. He faced it with a long list of relief measures that brought a measure of relief but did little to correct the basic problem and in 1937 at the beginning of his 2nd term a nation on relief remained in deep economic depression. For me FDR’s great success was his early recognition of the truly evil nature of Nazi Germany and its unholy alliance with imperialist Japan. In 1940 he quickly moved to prop up the UK to keep it in the War and with the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor in 1941 bring the United States into a Military alliance that brought complete victory in 1945. By that time after a rapid deterioration of FDR’s health he was dead but his successor Harry Truman lead a nation with a booming economy primed to supply a nation and a world hungry for the goods and services it had so long been denied.
-
Jonathan, I too noted the role of politics in determining positions of the various national interests. In particular throughout the book I was surprised how much Khrushchev had to consider Communist politics. Though he appeared to be a dictator whose word was law, in fact he was always much concern about how any of his decisions might be view by the Politic Bureau back in Moscow lest a bad decision cost him the substitution of a Siberian Ice house for his Black Sea summer home. In fact, I think he was more dependent on political consideration than Kennedy but Kennedy too kept in mind what was expected of him
-
And Joan regarding your question, “Who has been a great President in time of peace.” I too consider Ronald Regan a great President. I really believe his program increasing U.S. military capability tipped the scale of the Cold War. It came at a time when the Soviet economy had failed miserably to provide its people with even their basic needs. By that time the then current leader Gorbachev realized the Soviet economy could not match the West and by January 1991 the Soviet Union was no more. Yes I certainly rank Regan as a Great President. I guess the unconventional nature of the Cold War leave unanswered the question of whether he was a Peace or War time President? Technically he was a peace time President.
-
The Folloing is an Interesting Cold War Timeline:
http://www.history-timelines.org.uk/events-timelines/03-cold-war-timeline.htm
-
It's a kind of depressing thought that it's easier to be a great president (or be thought of as one) if you have a war going.
I'm only a third of the way into part I, but several things stand out so far. One is Kruschev's precarious political situation, and how careful he had to be to take exactly the right line so he wouldn't be kicked out. We must have known some of that at the time, but I certainly didn't realize how bad it was.
The other is his exaggerated mood swings. It must have been a nightmare to deal with him. Everything depended on whether he thought someone wasn't demonstrating enough respect for him, or how much vodka he had drunk, or whether something nice happened to put him in a good mood.
-
I agree that FDR was a great peace time President and in fact his model for bringing the country out of The Great Depression was used in other countries including mine in those awful years.
Carolyn
-
I can't remember a time when we were actually at peace (born in 1932). If not actually fighting, talking about it -- cold war, nuclear war, aiding others in their wars, etc.
-
Great posts, HAROLD! Would you say that we can lay the blame for the years of the Cold War at Krushchev's feet? Is that why Kempe began the book with him? Or was it "politics" back home as JONATHAN stated?
The two quotes on Page One of the book are startling. In 1960 Krushchev was bragging that he could destroy Europe with his nuclear bombs (probably a true statement) and a year later he was attaching great importance to improving relations with the west. What can we make of those two statements a year apart?
The picture that comes to my mind when I think of Krushchev was his pounding the table at the U.N. and promising to bury America. To me at the time it was frightening that a country that large and with his capability could be so antagonistic toward us. What had we done? I hope I'm not mixing various times and statements as I have a tendency to do.
Isn't the book written well? I want to read another one of his - history coming alive. The book as General Scowcroft (a name from the recent past) states is "engaging, richly researched, thought-provoking" and challenging.
-
PATH, I agree it's depressing. At the same time I think it is true that most men, most leaders whether they be presidents or dictators, believe that history will remember them best if they have been successful in winning wars. Think Napoleon! It's a "man thing." (Gosh, will I get feedback from that! But I didn't invent the statement Stand up and fight like a man!)
Not to state that they want war (although many historical figures started them) but when it is thrust upon them the realization that they will be no doubt be in the history books is one that gets them moving. And sometimes not, think LBJ and what Vietnam did to the man.
But we (Ella) mustn't get off into American politics, this book is about a worldwide situation that began after WWII and the treaties that were signed.
KIDSAL, I was born in 1928 and, with you, it seems that America was at war somewhere. We had few years of peace here at home. And the last two, Vietnam and the present Iraq/Afghanistan, are such prolonged wars. Why is it that the wars with huge weapon, tanks, men, guns, planes, WWI, and II were shorter? And all of Europe involved.
-
CAROLYN, it's good to see you here! New Zealand - far away across the sea.
Thank you for your post! And your statement that FDR's model for bringing the country out of the depression also was a help to your country. Different times, different methods. Although the financial news is not good at the moment, we certainly, none of us, are in the the breadlines and soup kitchens of the 1930's.
Are you enjoying the book? Were you affected by the Cold War in any particular ways?
In 1960 Kruschev was feeling very powerful, he had overcome the monopoly of the USA in nuclear power, the Soviet Union was very strong militarily. We must give the man credit when due. In 1953 his country had barely risen from the ruins of the war and the policies of Stalin
-
Oh yes, I am enjoying this book - but am having a difficult time sorting out what I did and not know was going on at this time. I grew up with Ike as my president. In elementary school, post WWII we were all aware of a threatening enemy - drills in case of a bomb - practicing hiding under our desks (as if that would have done any good in a nuclear attack.)
But Eisenhower was our president - a war general - he'd keep us secure. I don't remember fear back in those days. Khruschev's visit was a wake up call - the table pounding - the enemy was real, embodied in this man who observed none of the civilities expected of a reasonable negotiator. For the first time, I remember experiencing fear.
Ella, back then, I don't remember Khruschev as being a man of peace - he was a man with his finger on a trigger that could destroy us. I don't remember the second quote you cited - that "he was attaching great importance to improving relations with the west."
I can't figure out if it was me - if I was uninformed of what was going on in the world - or if any of us were aware of Khruschev's precarious political position at home that PatH refers to. I remember at Kennedy's inauguration how everyone regarded him as a breath of needed fresh air - a welcome change to Eisenhower's stodgey presidency. This book is helping to understand what was really going on behind the scenes.
Harold, that is a very useful time line - do you think it would be helpful to put it in the heading for quick reference? I know I'll need it, woefully ignorant...
-
Ella asks in message #72, “Would you say that we can lay the blame for the years of the Cold War at Krushchev's feet? Is that why Kempe began the book with him? Or was it "politics" back home as JONATHAN stated?
No I don’t see any grounds to lay the blame for the Cold War at Khrushchev’s feet. Neither he nor Kennedy began the Cold War that clearly was the left over political debris of WW II particularly the Yalta arrangement that set up the four party control of post war defeated Germany. I’m not sure of skirmishes in the 1946 -48 period, but clearly by June 1948 the Cold War had begun in earnest when Russia under Stalin cut off Western rail and highway traffic to Berlin. Truman responded with the Air Lift that kept West Berlin Supplied. The success of this operation resulted in the reopening of the access routes. By 1961 the magnitude of the East German economic problem forced Khrushchev to reopen the issue that is the story of our book.
Kempe opens his book with a Chapter entitled “Khrushchev Communist In A Hurry,” because it sets the opening scene by telling us in some detail the Communist east’s problem and how Khrushchev proposed to solve his program with a peace treaty with East Germany formally ending WW II with a sovereign East Germany iwith its Capital the united Berlin and in complete control of its boarders and people.
-
I can see it already. This book could change ones thinking about a lot of things of the recent past. It certainly is a good opportunity to enjoy an exercise in historical judgement. I found an amazing insight almost immediately, but read even better ones in your posts.
Of the four major antagonists, Khruschev is the first up. He could be considered the instigator of the crisis known as Berlin 1961. The way it suddenly seems to me is that, despite the rhetoric and the sabre rattling, Khruschev was not the Russian bear of grim reputation. In fact he may have been more of a teddy bear. Mao, that megolomaniac, horrified him.
I find one refrain running through the first two chapters. Khruschev would love to make a deal with The West. Primarily, of course, with the U.S. He talks to everyone about it, in one way or another. But he's a poor negotiator, and his opponent is an inexperienced one. It was far more complicated than just a peasant and a patrician not being able to understand one another. Khruschev, it almost seems to me, was a Gorbachev before his time. On the other hand, Gorbachev must have found a sympathetic 'partner' in Ronald Regan. After all, they had both been actors before launching into politics. 'Tear down this wall, Mr Gorbachev,' it's a lousy stageprop.
That shouldn't take anything away from Khruschev's acting ability. His motions were theatrical. It fooled even his wife, Nina. She once told another Summiter's wife, Nikita is sometimes a way up, and sometimes away down.
-
For a hundred years the U.S. has been part of European affairs. Has it been helpful?
-
The following are short biographies of Khrushchev. I think a quick reading of these will enable a clearer understanding of our book.
A short one page Biographical Sketch
http://www.pbs.org/redfiles/bios/all_bio_nikita_khrushchev.htm
The more detailed Wikipedia account. This is a more detailed biography providing more information on Khrushchev’s past as a Political Commissar in the Red army both pre-WWII and during the War when he rose to General rank. In these positions he supported and participated in the Stalin area purges.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikita_Khrushchev
-
The Book Club Online is the oldest book club on the Internet, begun in 1996, open to everyone. We offer cordial discussions of one book a month, 24/7 and enjoy the company of readers from all over the world. everyone is welcome to join in.
Berlin 1961 by Frederick Kempe
(http://seniorlearn.org/bookclubs/berlin1961/berlin1961cvr.jpg) |
JOIN US in September as we renew our history, a more accurate history, of events that most of us remember very well. Historians are now able to not only do research into fresh new documents, but personal interviews have uncovered a wealth of information that is stunning to read. A young, untested, wealthy, U.S. president meets a Russian premier, son of a coal miner; Kennedy and Khrushchev, opposite in every way, yet holding the world in their hands. It's drama at the very best.
President Kennedy called the year a "string of disasters;" Kempe called it one of the worst of any modern presidency.
The book is divided into three parts: THE PLAYERS, THE GATHERING STORM AND THE SHOWDOWN.
Fascinating history, dramatic with new research into documents never before explored. |
The Players
(http://seniorlearn.org/bookclubs/berlin1961/khrushchev%20(159x230).jpg) (http://seniorlearn.org/bookclubs/berlin1961/ulbricht%20(151x230).jpg) (http://seniorlearn.org/bookclubs/berlin1961/kennedy%20(148x230).jpg) (http://seniorlearn.org/bookclubs/berlin1961/Adenauer%20(153x230).jpg)
Left to right: Krushchev - Ulbricht - Kennedy - Adenauer
Discussion Schedule
Sept 1-8 Part I
Sept 9-16 Part II
Sept 17-30 Part III and Epilogue
Some Topics for Consideration
Sept 1-8 Part I
1. A few of our greatest presidents, e.g., Washington, Lincoln, FDR, found their place in history because of war. Is this a true statement? Is there a president, in your opinion, who has been a great one in time of peace?
2. Was Kennedy ill informed about the Soviet Union when running for President? Was he ill informed on foreign affairs after gaining the presidency? Who advises a new president on foreign affairs?
3. Why was it important for East Berlin to become an independent state? Why did Krushchev believe he had the power to influence the USA to accept the reality of two German states?
4. Both Eisenhower and Krushchev had a poor opinion of the new president; why?
5. If the Soviet Union should overrun Berlin, what were the options of the West?
6. If it came to a war, why did the author believe that the Soviet Union would win it?
7. President Kennedy was in very poor health. Why did he run for the office? How could we prevent a candidate from taking office who is in in poor health or should we be concerned?
8. In your opinion should the United States have flown a spy plane over Soviet territory ,(the Gary Powers incident)?
9. Kennedy stated in 1957 that the “age of Adenauer is over.” Age discrimination on his part? How did Adenauer hang on so long in power in West Berlin?
10. How did Adenauer’s beliefs and values differ from Ulbricht’s? How were they similar?
11. Adenauer learned the hard lesson of working with Krushchev from a meeting in 1955. What were the results of that meeting?
12. What was Ulbricht’s challenge to Krushchev and why was it taken seriously by the Communist leader?
13. How did China become involved with East Germany?
Related links:
Frederick Kempe's home page (http://fredkempe.com/);
New York Times Book Review (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/12/books/review/book-review-berlin-1961-by-frederick-kempe.html);
Discussion Leaders: Ella (egibbons28@columbus.rr.com) & Harold (hhullar5@yahoo.com)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There was an interesting article in yesterday’s San Antonio Express telling of a September 13th ABC program commemorating the Fiftieth anniversary of the Kennedy Administration. It will be a 2 hour special with Diane Sawyer and Caroline Kennedy. Included also will be a 50 year old previously never aired recording of a TV interview with Jackie Kennedy made shortly after she left the Whitehouse after JFK’s death. This interview has never before been seen and heard. I think this interview may be of interest to us as we discuss Part 2 considering Jackie Kennedy’s role in the Vienna conference in June 1961 and also later events covered in our book. .
-
I don't have the book yet, am waiting on inter-library loan. So i may be duplicating something you have already read.
If i'm remembering my learning correctly, the civil war in Greece brought on Truman's first major decisions about "containment" of the Soviets in the Cold War, "the domino theory" and the Truman Doctrine. Here is a good link.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/war/greek.htm
Jean
-
JEAN, I was hoping you would be here soon and also hoping you get your book. It's good reading!
GREAT POSTS!
But such a complicated situation. Krushchev, fascinating fellow, he is given credit for the "post-Stalin thaw" as some historians call it, but all of the characters (in the heading above just the communists are smiling, did you notice) are in this story and each has his part to play.
I think it was JOANP who mentioned Eisenhower - Eisenhower, who thought Kennedy was "Little Boy Blue," a young whippersnapper, who needed some instruction on how to handle the Soviet Union, while JFK thought Ike was "intellectually ponderous and inadquately informed about issues."
Was it the age difference, disrespect, what was it with young JFK? (I had to look up the references for some of this, never having read anything like it)
What did all of you think of Kempe's portrayal of Kennedy?
Do you have any ideas of which one of the four Kempe might have favored in this first section? Or none at all, sorta of a on the scale of l-10 question? I know it's early to ask such a question, but............
-
I seem to have lost a long post I wrote about "great presidents". I think there must be a great challange to the president in order for us to KNOW whether he is a great president. But it doesn't have to be war, as FDR in peacetime shows. The early presidents had, perhaps, the greatest challange of all, as they were determining what kind of country this new "democracy" would be. Washington deserves te label for his determination that no president should serve longer than 8 years. Some people mowadays thinks that any nation that holds elections is a democracy. No, we don't know whether we have a democracy until we see a peaceful transfer of power. (The first president to be voted out of office was Adams, and he did step down peacably, but it was a near thing).
-
Does anyone else have the same trouble with "Berlin 1961" that I do? It is full of statements that so-and-so- "Thought such and such, really wanted such and such, didn't like such and such. HOW DOES HE KNOW what these people were thinking.
The book is lavishly footnoted, but most of the notes are to other books or articles, so you still don't know the aurthors basis for what he says. I only saw one direct quote from the person referred to to substantiate Kempe's claims to know what was going on inside these peoples heads.
This kind of writing is fundamentally dishonest!!! He may have very good reasons for everything he says, but as long as he soesn't share his reasons with us, I intend to take everything in this book with a large grain of salt. The book has the weakness of historical fiction: he can portray these people any way he wants, and we don't know how accurate thaat portrayal is. I'm going to read it as if it is fiction.
-
I don't think we truly live in Democracies. If we did there would be National Referendums on very important issues- for instance whether we go to war.
-
Do you have any ideas of which one of the four Kempe might have favored in this first section?
Not an easy question, Ella! Easier to say which one of the PLAYERS he did not favor. So far, I'd have to say Kennedy. What we read of Kennedy does not really surprise me - as to how unprepared he was to step into the role of a player in the fragile alliance in Berlin. Even his advisors were not in agreement! He seemed to learn nothing from Eisenhower, not that he spent much time seeking his advice. The Cuban handling was an indication of just how naive he was. It will be interesting to watch and see what he decides to do in the next section.
I had to feel something for Khrushchev - he is in a difficult position trying to convince his own Russians that he was succeeding with the West. He walks a very fine line.
JoanK, can you give a specific example of what makes you classify Berlin61 as historical fiction? Or dishonest? I didn't have that problem with the book - it seems so well researched, I can't believe Kempe would make anything up to make the book more readable.
-
JoanK, can you give a specific example of what makes you classify Berlin61 as historical fiction? Or dishonest? I didn't have that problem with the book - it seems so well researched, - JOANP
Let us know, JoanK! I've had to look up some quotes that seemed to me unbelievable, but Kempe has his notes by page numbers.
Is it right for historians to elaborate on specific subjects that they researched? Would we read a book that simply stated facts?
Is this book predicated on the author's opinions?
Let's have a show of hands???
KENNEDY. Most of us know about his health problems. He was young, charismatic, awesome! Should we be concerned with the health of presidential candidates?
-
"Have you read the Inaugural Address?" Ambassor Thompson asked Khrushchev, speaking of the new president. "Not only had he read the speech, Khrushchev said, but he would ask Soviet newspapers to print the entire text the following day."
This was unprecedented. I am surprised to read of Khrushchev's reactions all through these chapters. Some I knew, such as the release of the two American airmen, but the events that Kempe relates leading to the WALL are very interesting to me.
HAROLD stated that the Yalta Conference was the beginning of the Cold War, true - JONATHAN blamed Khrushchev for it all. I think it is more complicated as we shall see when we discuss Ulbricht and the tension created as the flood of Communists leaving East Berlin for the west.
The two Berlins and their leaders are, for me, rather new information and absolutely fascinating history. I remember reading or hearing about Konrad Ademauer, but nothing whatever about Ulbricht and his "relentless focus" on the Stalinist version of socialism.
-
Ella: 'Is this book predicated on the author's opinions?'
Goodness, no. I think Kempe has a pretty good handle on his materials and keeps his account factual, or shall we say believable. Of course, JoanK makes a good point by asking: 'How does he know what these people were thinking?' I've wondered about it myself, several times. Could it be an occupational hazard for the historian? Especially so in this case where the art of diplomacy comes into play. All these men were constantly wondering what is the other guy really thinking. Public statements, private thoughts, etc.
In that context I wonder why Kennedy didn't leave it to his ambassador to reach an agreement with Khrushchev, Thompson had such good rapport with K. They understood each other's thinking.
-
Regarding Kempe’s book I don’t think it is unduly opinionated by the Author’s opinions. In fact I think it is a rather complete analysis of the historical facts that is the subject of the writing with appropriate conclusions written by the author that seem logical based on the actual facts. I did not note any Author injected conclusions not called for by the historical facts.
There were times maybe when I thought it was too detailed but the fact is the complete actual book is a mere 579 pages including Acknowledgments, Notes, Bibliography, and Index. This is certainly not excessive for a subject as comprehensive as this one.+
The Author in compiling his writing relied much on fact inputs of several former or then incumbents U.S. or allied foreign officials such as West German Chancellor Konrad Adenauer, French President Charles de Gaulle, former Secretary of state Dean Acheson, and U.S. ambassador to Russia, Llewellyn Thompson, and others. The inputs of these individuals differed sometimes widely. How Kennedy processed this information to formulate his understanding of policies were sometimes for me confusing. Perhaps for Kennedy they were confusing also.
-
Kiwi lady, you are right of course we do not live in a true democracy, we live in representative Democracies. I remember as a kid in elementary school a teacher calling this fact to our attention. She cited Switzerland as the world’s only true democracy. I sort of doubt that it was anywhere near that pure, then or now. Historical one could not imagine bring all a Nation’s population together to vote the popular choice of each and every issue.
Today I suppose a nationwide digital voting system is a possibility. Even so I hesitate to think of the weird results of such a system with the entire population voting for or against every issue now studied, debated, and propose by our respective Parliaments, Congresses, and other Legislative assemblies. Let’s be satisfied with what we have. Though imperfect, it somehow seems to work.
-
Ella asked in Message 82 above,” What did all of you think of Kempe's portrayal of Kennedy?” I think he treated them fairly. I am trying to think back but I don’t think Kempe’s view of them was radically different from my own. I found it hard to make my decision but ended up voting for JFK, probably for the wrong reason.
I think both JFK and his brother Robert were certainly smart very high iq individuals and they were certainly well educated. I think our author even noted that Eisenhower was amazed how quickly JFK digested the information conveyed to him at pre inaugural briefings. None the less as we will see next week the first year of his administration included some negatives including the Bay of Pigs invasion and a bad opening at the Vienna Conference.
Another negative for some has been the rich playboy image particularly of JFK in the Whitehouse that came from the news media years after his administration ended. In this respect Robert Kennedy as a long married man and father appeared better, but the younger Ted Kennedy’s problem with the accidental drowning of a female campaign worker ruined the last chance of another Kennedy in residence at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue
Also Ella asked in Message 87 above, “KENNEDY. Most of us know about his health problems. He was young, charismatic, awesome! Should we be concerned with the health of presidential candidates?”
The presidents health should always be a matter of concern for all Americans. JFK certainly carried his health problems. Next week in Part 2 we will note his condition at Vienna, and years later we discovered he had more serious life threatening problems. He was not the only American President with such problems with perhaps the most serious incident being the severe illness of Woodrow Wilson who wife seems to have managed his administration during the last months of his term. Later this problem has been partially corrected by new rules for managing an extended Presidential incapacity by the Vice President.
-
It was Jack Kennedy who was being groomed by his father to run for president. I believe the same for Jeb Bush until he lost the Florida election. But John Kennedy did have a schooling in foreign affairs from his father. John Kennedy certainly wasn't lacking in advice -- Eisenhower, Sec of Defense, State, Ambassadors, and a zillion others. Health -- as long there is no mental health problem I imagine by the time anyone runs for president they have a couple of health problems. Pres Reagan's problems were covered up I believe. A man I worked with was to receive an award from him. Said when he returned to the office (this was in last year of Reagan's term) that he thought the president didn't seem to sure what was going on - in sort of a haze. This was before any word came out on his condition.
-
Kidsal as I understand it, it was JFK’s elder brother Joseph P. Kennedy that was the fathers first in line for the Persidency but he was killed in action during WW II. JFK, the 2nd son survived to run and achieve that goal
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kennedy_family#Third_generation
This shows JFK as third generation Boston Irish American. His grandfather and father had been active in the Boston Democrat Party and his father had become a multi millionaire through business dealings. It seems the father’s great ambition was to see a son become President and from an early age he groomed his sons for this goal. The elder son Joseph Kennedy was Killed in action during WW II after which the mantel fell to John F. Kennedy the 2nd son. Other younger sons who later entertained Presidential ambitions were Robert F. Kennedy and Edward M. Kennedy (Known as Ted or Teddy)..
-
According to my list when we began this discussion we had 11 committed participants (counting Ella and myself). Today is the 4th day of active discussion and I count 9 of us who have checked in with comments. Thank all of you, keep your comments coming.
And the two of you who have not yet comment, please come on in. We are missing your input. Also anyone else out there with questions or their own comments on the subject are welcome to join in.
-
I was in college during the Kennedy/Nixon campaign and as i look back on it now i think Kennedy's appearance and personality drew the people of that age to him. I don't recall much talk about his experience, or lack of it. My Republican friends were questioning some of that but those of us who favored Kennedy were looking at someone who seemed more like us - even tho i now know his life had been nothing like anyone i knew.
He was young, as compared to Eisenhower. He seemed friendlier and more fun, less rigid and conservative then Nixon. We empathized with him bcs people seemed to be discriminating against him for being Catholic. He seemed to have new ideas, again, i think that was more a factor of his personality than really knowing it was true. The only thing i knew about his health was that he had a bad back bcs of his WWII experiences - heroic experiences. Knowing now what i know about his health, if he had been running against anyone other than Nixon, i might
not have voted for him - that's from a "sensible" old age perspective.
My mother, a strong Calvinist Presbyterian, voted for the Republican, perhaps for the only time in her life, strictly from a prejudice against the Catholic Church.
Based on his playboy life, his father's financial influence, his minimal experience, i don't know with the investigative reporting of today that he could get elected today. Which i think might be a shame based on how he grew in the job and the atmosphere he brought to the country.
So in conclusion, young people probably voted for him for many wrong reasons and i'm not sure he could get elected today, but i think he did a good job regardless of his previous history and his health problems. Maybe we should keep in mind that being president of the U.S. is an on-the-job-training-only situation and many rise to meet the standard once they get there - and age significantly doing it.
Jean
-
Jean, it makes you wonder how our system works, doesn't it - We vote for a person we know little about to take the highest position in the land - to make decisions that mean life and death for so many. We rely on the press and campaign rhetoric to learn about the person we are going to vote for. Charisma has a lot to do with it too - should it? Can it be helped?
Would JFK be elected today? If the press was enamoured with him, the way it was back then, then possibly. I don't think we realize how much influence the press has on our perception of the candidate.
And as you say, the presidential office is on-the-job training. No one can be prepared for the presidency. Maybe the Vice President? Can you just imagine those post-election meetings when the incoming president learns of the urgent decisions he is expected to make immediately? I liked reading about Harry Truman's first days.. but won't go into that now.
Harold spoke about the lengthy tapes Jackie Onassis made following the assassination with the orders that they not be made public until 50 years had gone by. I am really interested in what she had to say - though cognisant of the fact that her main goal was to preserve her husbands image. Does your newspaper carry the Parade magazine? There's a large spread on an interview with Caroline Kennedy S. on those tapes.
-
In today's climate, it would be much harder for a presidential candidate to hide a serious medical condition. Same with personal life. JFKs philandering was much more copious than Clinton's, but it wasn't really known until later. And they were both good presidents, in spite of this despicable side to their personal lives.
We should definitely be concerned about any health issues that would seriously impact a candidate's ability to do his job, or make it likely he would die in office. But as Kidsal points out, most candidates would be likely to have some issues, and presidents have done good jobs while ill.
-
The good and the bad of it. JOANP asked if we realize how much the press influences the elective process; on the other hand PatH states how difficult it would be today for a presidential candidate to hide both health problems and swinging lifestyle.
Free press, the Constitution protects it so, we can either ignore it, read more of it than we do, or listen to the TV numerous entertaining news stations. I don't read news online; of course, someday that may be my only choice!
JEAN, I agree that JFK's youth appealed to many after the Eisenhower administration. Without getting into politics are we saying that only the young folk vote?
THANKS TO ALL OF YOU FOR THE POSTS. SO INTERESTING TO COME IN AND READ THEM!
-
I think Kempe emphasizes Krushchev's role in this drama more than the others - just my personal opinion - and rightly so. The confrontation between the two superpowers was bound to happen after that Yalta Conference which was disastrous in Germany and kept millions prisoners for some 30 years behind the Wall. One wonders, after the fact, and I remembering being amazed at the time, how well Germany recovered from taking in all the East Berlin and East German refugees after the Wall came down.
However, I think we can begin to see in these first chapters that Krushchev is interested in the West, signified by this sentence on page 26: "A few days after Thanksgiving, during one of the most extraordinary meetings ever between a Soviet leader and an American politican" took place at Cap David, the American "gulag" as the Soviet leader called it. That's amusing. It was Eishenhouser who named it Camp David after his grandson. Years ago we visited the Gettyburg farm where Eisenhower retired. What a career he had!
But wasn't it the first time the two leaders had ever met in America? I think it was JONATHAN who asked if America had ever regretted our involvment in European affairs (WWI?). Yes, Yes. However, the world would have been a different place if we had not.
-
Ella asked "without getting into politics are we saying that only the young folk vote?"
No, of course not, but young people voted in large numbers for Kennedy and i was speaking of the people i was around at the time.
-
Ella asked "without getting into politics are we saying that only the young folk vote?"
No, of course not, but young people voted in large numbers for Kennedy and i was speaking of the people i was around at the time.
-
It's interesting to read about presidents and health issues. Wilson in his last year. Roosevelt at Yalta. Reagan towards the end. One other president from day one. Kennedy, we read, could never understand, with his bright, shining image, how he managed just barely to win the office. Of course he had Khrushchev in his corner, for what that was worth. Did Khrushchev ever wonder if he might have reached an accord with Nixon. Nixon took his mission to China and look what happened. Have you all read about Adenauer taming Khrushchev by shaking his fist at him? I can't understand why Kennedy didn't stop off in Bonn on his way to Vienna, to get a few tips from Adenauer. Kennedy may have felt he would be lectured on his morals. Make a note of the feelings of a heavily-burdened eighty-five-year old on his birthday.
What a challenge for a new president. The Berlin crisis of 1961. As Harold has pointed out, Kempe takes 579 pages to give us a complete picture. The context in which it all happened. By way of contrast I would like to quote a short paragraph from Donald Rumsfeld's new book: KNOWN AND UNKNOWN.
For all John Kennedy's personal charm, however, little had been accomplished in his all too short presidency. On the foreign policy front, the administration's record was thin. There were his talks with the Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev in Vienna, where Khrushchev came away with the impression that Kennedy was young and inexperienced. There was the failed Bay of Pigs invasion of Cuba that added to the impression of American weakness. Then followed the construction of the Berlin wall and the Cuban Missile Crisis, both of which seemed to have been at least in part a result of an emboldened Khrushchev deciding to test America's new young leader.'
Didn't that all come with a lot of wearying detail for the young president?
-
Jonathan, add to the wearing detail of the office, the young president's now-known busy personal schedule -
"JFKs philandering was much more copious than Clinton's, but it wasn't really known until later." PatH
As I read Kempe's book, I'm struck with the fact that Kennedy's "philandering" was well known by so many - at the time. Leaders, Ella mentions Adenauer for one, were concerned that his "sexual infidelities were a weakness communists would know how to exploit."
Harold, you mention the president's intelligence - as Eisenhower observed after their meeting. What I can't understand is how such an intelligent man could not recognize that he was flirting with danger, putting himself and the country in a compromising situation. Did he not believe there was danger? Or did affairs with some of these women make it more exciting for him? Also, wasn't it just plain exhausting for a man said to be in constant pain.
But how was this kept from the American public if so well known abroad? Kempe tells us that the Kennedy administration kept the CIA and FBI he inherited in place to "prevent the release of damaging intelligence about his past."
-
"I remembering being amazed at the time, how well Germany recovered from taking in all the East Berlin and East German refugees after the Wall came down." Ella
Ella, I don't think the influx was much of a surprise - it was a well-known fact that East Germans had been risking their lives coming west, since that wall went up.
Can we talk a bit about how Berlin was divided at war's end? Was the west always a more desirable part of the city? I'm amazed that West Berlin became so prosperous, considering its location. Access to the city in East Germany was crucial, wasn't it? Still, its success was quite a feat. No wonder Khrushchev is concerned about the influx of refugees to the West.
-
JoaanK has been been having computer problems. She will be back to amplify her remarks when she can.
-
Regarding West Berlins Economic prosperity in the 1960’S, I think it was the West German national prosperity that drove West Berlin' prosperity. Within West Berlin its self I suspect the prosperity was mostly derived from the French English, and US administered government as well as rebuilding the city from the rubble left after the war. West Germany by 1961 had many popular items on the US. market. I myself owned a German made amplifier, record changer, and Speakers. Also the Volkswagen was a popular best selling automobile being driven by many people worldwide. Perhaps some of you owned one during this period.
-
Regarding JFK’s treatment by the press he seems to have held an almost mystical position with all of the Media sources. Looking back it seems in their eyes he could do no wrong. In contrast Nixon seemed a favorite whipping boy and most other politicians at the time considered themselves popular targets But JFK could have Marilyn Monroe in the Lincoln bedroom with our a whisper. All of the Kennedy’s shared this favor at least until 1968 when Ted’s accident caused the death of a woman campaign worker and scratched him as a future President though he continued in the Senate without serious opposition for another 40 years.
On the Voting Age Issue I suspect the percentage of old people who vote is less than with other age groups. Here at Chandler of the 40 or so resident at this Independent Living Apartment only 6 or 7 take advantage of the free Chandler Bus trip to the Voting place. That’s less than 20 % of the total residents. This despite the well publicized free opportunity.
In 1960 it appears to me that young people did turn out and it was this turnout that resulted in JFK’s win. Even so I don’t think a high percentage turnout of young voters is common. Generally it appears they just have other more interesting things to be concern about, and just don’t think their vote would make a difference. But another example of young people turn out was the 1972 Presidential race that won the Democratic Party nomination for George McGovern. Though it won him the nomination he lost the election with a landslide victory for the Republican, a second term for Nixon.
-
Actually i believe i have read that the age group most likely to vote are the 60-somethings.
I found this chart about the last elections. Scroll down a little to see the chart.
http://politicalarithmetik.blogspot.com/2008/08/age-turnout-and-votes.html
-
'Kennedy kept the CIA and FBI he inherited in place to "prevent the release of damaging intelligence about his past." '
From awesome to awful. Leaving himself open to blackmail. I had to shake my head over that statement in the book. Come in JoanK and tell us it's part of the fiction. Is that what Comalot was all about - a personal agenda? What was it he was going to do for his country?
-
The "ASK NOT" speech, JONATHAN, yes, we remember. Weren't the various versions interesting?
Does everyone lke the short stories our author has injected into the text? How about that sniper coming in from the cold?
Short summaries, JOANP, of the situation after the Yalta and the Potsdam Conferences on the division of Germany:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrbcO2FoiDo
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x8M88fIpCFY&feature=related
Does anyone have details to add about the division? Inside the cover of the book is an excelent map. I know after reading about several of these leaders I want to learn more; particularly, I want to read Krushchev's Memoirs which are often quoted in the book.
HAROLD had a good explanation for the prosperity of West Berlin, but this could, in part, be due to the refugees that fled from communism and repression in East Berlin, don't you think?
-
Just lostt a long post quoting Kempe's phrases where I felt he was claiming to know what Kruschof thought without telling us how. I'll try short posts, so I won't lose them:
None of these are footnoted.
p. 6: K was "working impatiently ...in hopes that"
Nixon "humiliated him in Moscow"
p.7 K "bathed in the crowd"
-
lost another post. It must cut off after time
p.9. K's "choice of language was calculated"'
-
Thanks for the 'chapter and verse' Joan. A good reminder to read critically. Khrushchev is definitely one to watch. Also on page 6, is the statement, 'Their conclusion was that he (Khrushchev) was more of an ebullient activist than, as many had believed until then, a Machiavellan communist in Stalin's mold.'
We're not told who the many are. But in the next sentence we read 'Another top-secret personality sketch...etc'. Perhaps these top-secret materials are still classified. Of course we know that by 1961 Khrushchev had put his Stalinist ways behing him. But still a Machiavellan?
-
Sure, Joan, your 'time' has run out. That's adjustable.
-
Regarding Krushchev, I believe documents are available now that the Cold War is over. Much information is available to researchers. Maybe this author has spoken to those who had contact with or information about Kruschev and his mindset at the time of the Cold War.
I believe fear and mistrust was mutual. The USA was mistrustful and so was the USSR. Hence the arms race.
Carolyn
-
p.11 "Kroll's view"
p. 12 "Kroll assumed"
-
p.13 "Kruschev remained certain"..
He paints a picture of what K was thinking and feeling without documenting it. Later he does the same for Kennedy.
-
You get the point? Sorry to drag it on. In spite of all that, the book is interesting.
JONATHAN: How do you adjust the time?
-
The Book Club Online is the oldest book club on the Internet, begun in 1996, open to everyone. We offer cordial discussions of one book a month, 24/7 and enjoy the company of readers from all over the world. everyone is welcome to join in.
Berlin 1961 by Frederick Kempe
(http://seniorlearn.org/bookclubs/berlin1961/berlin1961cvr.jpg) |
JOIN US in September as we renew our history, a more accurate history, of events that most of us remember very well. Historians are now able to not only do research into fresh new documents, but personal interviews have uncovered a wealth of information that is stunning to read. A young, untested, wealthy, U.S. president meets a Russian premier, son of a coal miner; Kennedy and Khrushchev, opposite in every way, yet holding the world in their hands. It's drama at the very best.
President Kennedy called the year a "string of disasters;" Kempe called it one of the worst of any modern presidency.
The book is divided into three parts: THE PLAYERS, THE GATHERING STORM AND THE SHOWDOWN.
Fascinating history, dramatic with new research into documents never before explored. |
The Players
(http://seniorlearn.org/bookclubs/berlin1961/khrushchev%20(159x230).jpg) (http://seniorlearn.org/bookclubs/berlin1961/ulbricht%20(151x230).jpg) (http://seniorlearn.org/bookclubs/berlin1961/kennedy%20(148x230).jpg) (http://seniorlearn.org/bookclubs/berlin1961/Adenauer%20(153x230).jpg)
Left to right: Krushchev - Ulbricht - Kennedy - Adenauer
Discussion Schedule
Sept 1-8 Part I
Sept 9-15 Part II
Sept 16-30 Part III and Epilogue
Some Topics for Consideration
Sept 9-15 Part II Pages 129-290
1. How did the President elect prepare himself for performing the duties of the office during the pre-inauguration weeks, Nov 5, 1960 – Jan 19, 1961? To whom (what individuals) did he go for council, information and advice on how to run the Presidential office? Discuss the Inauguration Ceremony. Do you have any personal recollection of it?
2. What were the results of the sub-rosa meetings between the President’s brother, Robert Kennedy and the Soviet NKVD Agent attached to the Washington Soviet Embassy, Georgi Bloshakov. More specifically from these meetings what details did Kennedy learn about Russian policy and plans and what details did Khrushchev learn about American plans?
3. Discuss the Bay of Pigs Invasion of Cuba. What last minute changes by President Kennedy in plans greatly affected the results? What were the results and the consequence of the operation? And what did the President learn from it?
4. When Kennedy agreed to meet Khrushchev was he ready? Discuss the course of the two day conference in Vienna, June 3-4 1961 and the events leading to its rather abrupt end. In particular discuss specific Kennedy failures mentioned on pp232-234.
5. How would you describe the mood of the President and his American advisors on Air Force one after the abrupt second day conference ending?
6. Discuss the situation at the end of the Vienna meeting resulting from Khrushchev’s ultimatum that he would sign a peace treaty East Germany ending WW II giving East Germany full control of its borders effectively ending U.S. rights in Berlin.
7. At this point what options were open for President Kennedy? Did Kennedy seem to realize limitations on his Power to respond? To whom did Kennedy turn for advice? What concrete steps were taken in preparation for war? Who were the hawks, who were the doves? How did a new more detailed map of East Berlin figure in determining future events?
Related links:
Frederick Kempe's home page (http://fredkempe.com/);
New York Times Book Review (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/12/books/review/book-review-berlin-1961-by-frederick-kempe.html);
Discussion Leaders: Ella (egibbons28@columbus.rr.com) & Harold (hhullar5@yahoo.com)
-
The 'short stories' are grim reminders of the many reports we got of how bad things were for many in Berlin. In East Berlin. They also bring to mind the many espionage stories we read. The Sniper! He really had something going. Playing his game with the Western intelligence people. And once he was safely in the West, he put on his crazy act. 'Kissinger was a KGB spy.'!!! Wasn't George Bush taken in by one of these know-it-alls? Via the CIA, of course. Some thing to do with the WMD business.
-
JOANK, yes, I agree we must be mindful of assumptions; I suppose if we knew how many of the books in the Bibliography the author actually researched we could forgive a few inferences. However, I'm glad you are finding the book interesting.
The New York Times Book Review is in the heading and here is the Washington Post Review:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/entertainment/books/frederick-kempes-berlin-1961/2011/05/23/AG6W5rOH_story.html
JONATHAN, thank you for the quote from Rumsfield's book. Are you enjoying it? All of the older statemen are coming out with books now it seems. Are you going to read Cheney's book? Who else has written one or who will be next? I smiled at your last post! JFK was very smart I think to stay clear of them all. He had Bobby!
JEAN, I agree, the youth of America have always been the progressive, more liberal section of the country and as you stated was the case in 1960. Somehow it seems at times as though everything today is dominated by the young: clothing, movies, music. Perhaps it is my age?
-
CAROLYN: Thank you for your post. Fear and mistrust was mutual; I remember the late 1950's and early 1960's very well. The Cold War progressed and, as JOANP mentioned in an earlier post, the children were taught what to do in case of a nuclear attack. How very frightening and I remember Civil Defense yellow and black signs on buildings, do any of you? Also a few of neighbors were interested in personal bomb shelters, one engineer thinking of building one in his backyard. Imagine! What good would it have done?
But time is passing and we have more characters yet to discuss; the Communist of East Berlin, who I believe was more responsible for the Berllin Wall than any other, and the West Berlin chancellor.
What do you think of these two "Unruly Alliances?" (See questions No. 10 and 11 in the heading)
-
Ella, thanks for the link to von Tunzelmann's short review of the book we are reading. He does have some interesting things to say. I like this statement:
Kempe reveals the unexpected slapstick of international diplomacy. And this: Nonetheless, “Berlin 1961” has more virtues than flaws. It is engaging, it is a great story, and it is generally fair-minded. This is both an enriching history and a rollicking good read. And this: 'Their (Kennedy's and Khrushchev's) wildly differing cultural backgrounds made it difficult for them to communicate.'
Two world leaders on the big stage. They come out swinging. Khrushchev with bluster and Kennedy with rhetoric.
von Tunzelmann says about Kempe's style: He favors punchy, one-sentence paragraphs.
One such that got me thinking is on page 80, after a brief description of Kennedy's search for the eloquence of greatness, specifically the concept of endurance, so effectively used by the greats in the past, specifically Churchill and Lincoln.
Kempe summarizes Kennedy's effort with, It was memorable rhetoric based on a false understanding. Of the ambiguous bluster?
-
I'm not reading the Rumsfeld book, Ella. I'm saving it for later. I got curious about what R had to say about 1961, and was surprised to find it all in one short paragraph. Of course, R has other fish to fry.
-
From our perspective the fear of the East was less paranoic. We are a tiny nation and have always had a socialist leaning. (NOT COMMUNIST!). We were allowed to freely travel to the Eastern Bloc although of course our security services kept an eye on frequent travellers.
We did not have nuclear attack drills because we are at the ends of the earth, tiny and were no threat to any nation. I believe this is a huge advantage!
Our population is not keen on having a large military, nuclear power or arms and we do not let ships carrying nuclear weapons or even nuclear powered ships into our ports. This has driven the US admins crazy and caused much angst and even punitive measures against us. After seeing the trouble in Japan our population is even more against nuclear power as we are a nation of seismic activity.
We of course did have our share of certain members of the Security services seeing Reds under the beds. The suspicions were proven to be unfounded in subsequent investigations.
So you can see my experience is vastly different from that of most of you!
-
So you can see my experience is vastly different from that of most of you!
Very different. I've lived in the Washington, DC area all my life, and we certainly had good reason to feel like target #1. During the Cuban missile crisis many of us felt we had about an even chance of living the week out.
-
I don't think Kennedy was ill informed. I believe he had hopes of being an instrument to bring about peaceful co existence in a world that still had vivid memories of WW2.
Despite his reported infidelities etc I liked Kennedy and my impression was of a man with sincerely held beliefs that there was hope that every nation could live peacefully alongside one another despite differences in ideology.
-
I remember the strong stand New Zealand took on remaining a nuclear free zone when the two superpowers were turning the world into an armed camp. That seems so long ago. Are you still in someone's black book over it Carolyn?
Of course, we all liked Kennedy. Except for Adenauer. What could have been the reason for his dislike? Because of what Kennedy said about him, when talking favorably about Willy Brandt? Or did Adenauer fear that Kennedy would reach an agreement with the Soviet Union that would adversely affect Western Germany? But peaceful coexistence could only be a dream in Europe, and the book gives the impression that Kennedy took office believing he should take a hard line in the Cold War. Whatever we get about peaceful coexistence is coming from Khrushchev.
What a fix Hitler left his country in. What a headache he left for his enemies. Sure I tried the Volkswagen in the sixties. What a reputation the car had worldwide. The best thing that ever came out of Hitler's Germany. But mine turned out to be the lemon. It needed a kickstart the first morning I had it. The steering would keep freezing up on me, and I hardly had the strength to get it around the corner. The gas mileage was lousy, etc, etc, etc. Even changing lanes required a half mile of highway.
-
It just occurred to me. Perhaps my little VW was programmed to go only straight ahead, like Hitler's panzers. Alas, the time comes when one is forced to turn around and go home.
-
CAROLYN! I've waited too long in life, darn it - should have moved to your country when I was young. It just sounds as though it is a lovely place to live, away from the madding crowd.
We can't seem to get away from discussing JFK can we? We all loved the man at the time, he was so elegant, eloquent after the ponderous, dull Eisenhower years (I did admire Ike's policies and, of course, his war record but he was not a politician).
Since we are still on JFK I have a paperback book titled THE KENNEDY BROTHERS by Richard D. Mahoney, that I pick up and scan from time to time. What promise the their administration held; the book stresses the word "their" claiming that Bobby was the power behind the throne. It deals with domestic issues with a few paragraphs now and then on foreign affairs.
I'll quote a few on Krushchev in the next post - because as JOANK says after a few paragraphs in one post you run out of space and must start a new "reply." Is this new?
-
JONATHAN, we are posting together. I loved the look of the little VW when they were first introduced in America, I couldn't tell if they were coming or going, both ends looked the same. Loved your story.
And I hope we get back to Adenauer and Ulbricht!!
WHERE IS EVERYONE TODAY, sleeping off the holiday stresses - family, cooking? It was quiet in my household.
Here is the quote (part of it) I will paraphrase a bit: de Gaullee advised Kennedy that Khrushchev was a demagogue, full of bluster and not meaning half of it. However, back in Washington his rhetoric was read differently and the hawks were soon circling over a Soviet-American showdown. Dean Acheson recommended that the country should be prepared to go to nuclear war over Berlin. Dean Rusk essentially agreed with this position.
Kennedy spoke to Kenny O'Donnell - (Schlessinger's A THOUSAND DAYS) "All wars start with stupidisty. God knows, I'm not an isolationist, but it seems particularly stupid to risk killing a million Americans about access on an Autobahn."
-
I couldn't finish that last post. And I do want to continue with a few more sentences from the book that impresssed me.
Kennedy was so disgusted by the "kindergarten" quality of a top-secret briefing by the National Security Council that he got up and walked out. Amazing that! In exasperation to Rusk he said "And we call ourselves the human race."
One more: In his speech to the nation on July 25th he said - "Miscommunication could rain down more devastation in several hours than had been wrought in all of human history"
We certainly had reason to admire John F. Kennedy. "Kennedy's sense of historical irony and his visceral distates for the military establishment ultimately confirmed him as a diplomat."
PATH, we will get into a bit of a discussion on the Cuban missile crisis soon. A very frightening episode in our history. Don't you wonder what the history books of Russia teach?
-
I am going on a bit much. SORRY, but ever curious (thank goodness that has not changed with age) I looked up the "madding crowd" expression from Thomas Hardy's book.
""Madding" means "frenzied" here.[3] The title may be ironic: the five main characters – Bathsheba, Troy, Boldwood, Oak, and Fanny Robin – are all passionate beings who find the "vale of life" neither quiet nor cool. - Wikipedia
Neither quiet nor cool - apt for the Kennedy's.
-
Perhaps the reason our group keeps returning to JFK is because we are familiar with that period of our history - and fascinated with what was going on in the rest of the world as it related to our own well-being and safety. I can understand that.
Do you get the feeling that Kempe is more sympathetic to Khruschev than to any of the "players"? Even more so that he is to Kennedy? Khruschev is in an extremely precarious position on Berlin - with all of the leaders. I'm going to admit that while reading about Mao's statements at that Nov. 1960 communist meeting, I silently thanked Khruschev for standing up to him...
Kempe tells us that Khruschev didn't like Mao. Mao was ready for war even with devastation..."conventional or thermonuclear." "We may lose more than 300 million people, but so what?" (Were these really Mao's words?) Mao wants a communist East Germany - and that includes all of Berlin.
Ulbricht's concern is the bleed of workers into the west. Look at Khruschev promising him economic assistance - as if he has it to give! Ulbricht views Khruschev as an inferior, condeming his tolerance of the Berlin situation. He believes Berlin - all of Berlin - should be considered part of East German territory. "He rules East Germany like a dictator", we're told - with Stalin's blessing. Stalin preferred a unified Germany outside of America's military presence.
I need some help understanding Adenauer's position - and why Kennedy doesn't like him. I can see why Adenauer worries that Kennedy won't stand up to the Soviets. And he worries about Kennedy's character and integrity. But Adenauer, we're told was Time Magazine's Man of the Year - 3 times. He's the freely elected German Chancellor. What is there not to like about him? What has he done? Was it something that went on during that November meeting with Khruschev in 1950 and the release of the Nazi War prisoners the Russians were holding?
-
For my own benefit, I was trying to think of all the reasons East Germany was so much worse off than West Germany. Might as well list them.
Perhaps they were more heavily damaged in the war. Does anyone know this?
Their occupation by the Russians was more brutal and destructive than the Allied occupation of West Germany.
They had paid, and were still paying, huge reparations to the Soviet Union, while West Germany was rescued by the Marshall Plan.
The Russians were appropriating a lot of their goods and produce for their own rebuilding and to ease several years of poor harvests.
West Germany had more raw materials (coal, etc) and factories.
Ulbricht had imposed a strict, classic Communist regime, and I don't care what the "glorious" theory says, in practice collectivization seems to turn out to be a lousy way to try to get agricultural efficiency.
As the difference in prosperity became obvious, people left to go to West Germany, especially the better educated, plus the ones who had lost their family farms to collectivization, who were the ones who knew how to farm well. This led to an accelerating spiral. The more who left, the worse things got. The worse things got, the more people left.
What have I left out?
-
Pat H, I think you pretty much ended up with the right answer. Your last three reason seems to sum it up correctly. As for the others the better pre war industrial sectors were in the west. But all of Germany at war's end were rubble from bombing as well as many areas had been actual battle grounds. Initially the Russians striped their East zone of all factories and useful resources sending them to rebuild Russia. By 1960 East Germans compared to their west German cousins lived dismally unhappy lives. Is it any wonder that many took advantage of the open border in Berlin to escape?
Kiwilady hopefully your democratic socialist nation does better than the U.S. and Europe. Are your taxes sufficiently high to pay for the service provided? Here in the US. taxes have become a bad word and many Countries, the US included, have run up staggeringly high debt loads that seems to herald a rather austere future at least for the near term.
-
A barbeque at the LBJ Ranch! In mid April 1961 JFK with just 2 ½ months of his presidency under his belt scheduled a invasion of Communist Cuba. The plans had been made months earlier by the CIA and other defense Department agencies. At the same time the West German Chancellor, Konrad Adenauer was in Washington discussing the brewing Berlin problems with Kennedy. JFK had made major revisions in the Cuban invasion plans including dropping most provisions for direct American involvement. As the April 15 th invasion day approach the President had no time for Adenauer so he ordered Vice President to take him to Texas to get him out of Washington. Johnson agreed So he took Adenauer for a 3 day trip where he treated the Chancellor to a Texas Style ranch Barbeque.
There the Chancellor mingled with several hundred South Texans mostly old Democratic Party faithful eating Great quantities of barbeque beef pork and shrimp washed down with Lone Star and Pearl beer. LBK would preferred to have stayed in Washington. He knew the Cuba operation was being scheduled and this was the project of his major interest. A few days later I had a first hand account of the Barbeque from my friend, Royce Jones who had been one of the invited local guests at the ranch, Royce was from another old ranch family that had for many years been active in Democrat Party affairs.
The Invasion of Cuba came April 16th and was an immediate failure. JFK had stripped it of significant air support and there was no US ground forces involved. The small force of Cuban refugee volunteers in the landing party was quickly captured by the “Cuban Army. It was a significant embarrassment for JFK that affected his foreign policy dealings with Khrushchev for the rest of his administration.
-
We actually have a Conservative admin in at the moment and of course they gave their mates massive tax cuts. The middle class is really suffering and the poor get poorer. I fear that we will not be much better off than you unless at the next election the Greens get more seats. We have Proportional Representation so that the Conservatives will have to be very careful what they do.
Its interesting that the more right we swing the lower our standard of living becomes. Once we were no 1 in Health and education now we are way down the list. Good Health and education are things that create a successful and well off population.
There is no politician who will tinker with our health system. They already tried charging part payments for hospital care and the majority of the population refused to pay. This was in the early nineties. The Govt rescinded this policy. LOL!
The majority of us do not moan about tax. Only the very wealthy do and thats a joke because most of them have very clever tax advisors and they end up paying much less tax than the middle class on a percentage basis. They still moan about what they cannot get away with. How much money is enough?
Enough of our politics!
-
I have an earlly appointment this morning, so am off. Will post later. I think Ulbricht an interesting figure and will skim the chapter in the book again. Adenauer and Ulbricht were both protecting their territories, in different ways, West Berlin being the more successful. Back later.
I've read the posts. THANK YOU ALL SO MUCH FOR MAKING OUR DISCUSSION SO INTERESTING.
-
PATH - A great post!! Marvelous job of observation! Thank you. I don't know either if West Berlin suffered less during the war, a good question.
From skimming the previously read chapter 5 I gather that both men, Ademauer and Ulbricht, were German citizens before the war although Ulbricht was a Communist. One wonders how he survived Nazi Germany as supposedly there was a purge of communists?
How differently these two Germans felt about government; as Kempe writes the two men "would come to define their era." One, I believe, was instrumental in the Berlin Wall and the Cold War as he consistently prodded and poked Krushchev for action against the West. Further our book states that both "distrusted the men upon whom their fates depended" But Kempe writes that Adenauer is "one of the great men in German history", so he did something right. As for Ulbricht he did it all wrong, didn't he?
Are there ever true friends among leaders of countries? Can you name them? Impossible , don't you think - as their own country and its interest would always take preference in any disagreement.
What are the lessons of WWII? Both these men thought they knew. Do we know?
Thankfully, in recent decades Europe has been peaceful but history proves otherwise. Will old enemies arise?
-
MARJ, SHEILA, KIDSAL! Are you still with us? We'd love to hear from you.
JEAN, did you get your book yet! We need everyone's opinions, we appreciate them all.
-
That must have been interesting, Harold,hearing about the barbeque at the LBJ ranch. I wonder. Did Adenauer enjoy it? He wasn't where he wanted to be. We're told he was hoping for a few days with Eisenhower at the Gettysburg farm. It may seem as if JFK wanted him out of the way, but we are told that he had had three long meetings with the Chancellor in two days, before shipping him off to Texas. The meetings were not congenial, we're told, consisting of 'an elderly man's lecture to the young president.'
That wouldn't be unreasonable. The fine points of European problems may have been unknown to the American. Despite all the advice and briefings from his experts. What a strange role for Kennedy. The arbiter of Europe's fate. He should get most of our attention. The author seems to think so. In his Introduction, Kempe poses the question. Was The Wall a success or a failure for Kennedy?
-
From skimming the previously read chapter 5 I gather that both men, Ademauer and Ulbricht, were German citizens before the war although Ulbricht was a Communist. One wonders how he survived Nazi Germany as supposedly there was a purge of communists?
He rode it out in the Soviet Union (p 91)
The Wikipedia article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_Ulbricht (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_Ulbricht) on Ulbricht makes him look like a really nasty piece of work.
-
Thank you Jonathan for your comment above expanding the significance of Adenauer’s trip to Texas for the Barbeque at the LBJ Ranch. Actually by bring up this Mid April event I slipped us ahead into the Week 2 discussion area, but this is alright since the move to Week 2 is scheduled tomorrow morning and the Week one chapters were short.. To answer your question, I’m sure Adenature enjoyed the event. For certain there were German Texas there who were still speaking the German Language. Fredricksburg is just 14 miles down Hwy 90 from the LBJ ranch and even today German might be heard on the main street. By Brother Jack, a retired School Teacher and Principal lives there.
PatH asked a good questions concerning the WW II background iof Konrad Adenauer. The following sites provide information on both Konrad Adenauer and Walter Ulbricht.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Konrad_Adenauer#Leader_in_Cologne During te War Adenauer remained in Germany. He had been Mayor of Cologne but was imprisoned by the Nazis several times. He was lucky to have survived since so many former politicians were executed after the 1944 attempt to kill Hitler, After the war he was again installed for a while by the allies as Mayor of Cologne . Later he emerge as Chancellor of West Germany.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_Ulbricht Ulbricht had fought for the Communist side in the Spanish Civil War. From 1937 until1945 he lived in Moscow where at times he was endangered by the Stalinist purges. At the War’s end he returned to East Germany to become the East German leader.
-
Tomorrow we will move on to our second week assignment, that is Part II of the Book entitled, “The Gathering storm,” pages 129 – 290. A new set of Considerations for Discussion will appear in the heading. This assignment will be an interesting one with the plot becoming more serious as the President-in-training gets his real-time introduction as a World Leader. See you then
I see I have a Chandler commitment tomorrow morning. I will try to insert an initial Part 2 post early and return in the late afternoon.
-
Tony Blair and George Bush seemed to be great mates. Churchill and FDR were rumoured to have a very friendly relationship. Yes I do think leaders can be good friends in some cases. Its the same with foreign diplomats. They can have a genuine friendship with a counterpart from a foreign country and still put their countries first. I have read biographies which illustrate this fact.
A classic example of a man who inspired huge respect and friendship amongst other leaders was Nelson Mandela. A very special man. The friendships he made while in office have continued into his retirement.
-
Ella,
My book arrived this week and at lat I an glad to havae the text. Sill I wonder whether I shouldn't first respond to some of the general questions regarding the Russian zone, where I visited my huband's relatives with him and, later, with our children.
It is impossible to imagine the conditions under which the people lived there : the Russian zone was hermetically sealed. It was in fact a separate state, a eparate nation, one might say. It was named DDR = Deutsche Demomkratische Republik. The designation was laughable, and the cut-off state was anything but democratic. (West Germany with the Amerian, English and French zones was called Bundesrepublik Deutschland = Federal Republic of Germany.)
Berlin, located in the middle of the' red sea' which was the Russian zone, was divided into four sectors, but thre was little doubt that the Soviets would have liked nothing better than assume total unlateral control of the city. (Vienna was similarly divided. I remember a film made around that time, called "Four in a Jeep", an MP each from the 4 occupying armies).
As partial answer to quetion 5, here is a link with information on an international crisis about Berlin that developed in 1948/49.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berlin_lockade
More tomorrow.
-
Ella, sorry I cannot recall a message I just posted. The URL lacks one letter. Here is the correct link
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berlin_Blockade
The earlier message appeared. Good. Sorry.
-
Kiwilady another rather prominent Anglo-American couple a few years earlier was Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Regan. In particular I remember in January 1989 when Regan’s term ended it was Margaret Thatcher who wrote Regan’s political obituary for Time Magazine. A year later when Thatcher too left office Regan wrote Thatcher’s political farewell in the same magazine.
Thank you Straudy for the Wikipedia link about the 1949 Berlin blockade. This was the event that really identified beginning of the Cold War. Please stay with us for the discussion.
Regarding my first discussion topic now posted in the heading, were any of you in the DC area attending any of the inauguration events? I don’t remember any TV of the Ceremony itself. I was no doubt at work. I do remember watching some of the TV coverage of the night events. I watched the screen of my first B&W CBS-Columbia TV. I remember there were multiple Balls and JFK and Jackie and other Kennedy’s went from one to another. The Johnsons to were followed too.
-
No, i haven't got my book and have a feeling the library may not be able to get it, so i'll just read your posts.
Harold, i remember watching the inauguration on tv. Altho WHAT i "remember" may be from news reels and video i've seen so often since then. Kennedy refusing to wear a hat, a cold wind blowing. I do remember it being a snowy, very windy and cooolldd day. I remember Jackie looking so elegant in her gown and matching coat. And i think i remember that she didn't go to all the balls. Hadn't she just had John, Jr a short time before?
Sorry if i'm repeating things that are mentioned in the book.
Jean
-
I was living in Bethesda, suburb of DC at the time of the inauguration. The snowfall had been quite heavy, and our back street had either not yet been plowed or was poorly plowed. Our furnace had stopped working, and as new homeowners it took a lot of calling to find out that you needed a plumber for that kind of furnace, and it was going to take him another day for him to get to us.
So we were living in the living room, close to the roaring fire, and listening to the whole thing on the radio (we didn't have TV). I remember being very impressed with his speech. Robert Frost, on the other hand, wasn't so impressive. Not all poets read their own work well, and I didn't care for the one he wrote for the occasion, though in general I like his poetry.
We were both very excited and enthusiastic about the new president.
-
Robert Frost was disappointing on that occasion. I remember that. So was the poet at Obama's inauguration. Politics and poetry just don't mix. The one is too truthful for the other.
Thanks, Pat, for the Ulbricht link. As you say, 'a nasty piece of work.' Leonid Brezhnev, the Soviet boss in 1971, finally sent Ulbricht packing. That's what Khrushchev should have done in 1961. What a headache he was for Khrushchev.
Another fine set of topical questions for Part II. The last one asks, what options did JFK have in dealing with the Berlin crisis. A good question, but we should ask it also about Khrushchev. If ever a man faced problems it was he. At home and abroad. What uncertainties did Kennedy face by comparison? The nation was strong, and so were his allies. Communism was a threat, but tottering on its feet. Khrushchev was begging for help. If only Kennedy had been an opportunist.
The Wikipedia article on Ulbricht cites Kempe five times.
-
Aren't we so fortunate to have Traude with us - with her first hand knowledge of war-torn Germany and post-war Berlin! Doesn't get any better than that! Welcome, Traude! Looking forward to your posts! And your point of view.
I'll be out of the country for a week or so - look forward to reading all these interesting posts when I return.
-
Bon voyage, JoanP.
-
SPRINGTIME FOR KRUSHCHEV? Not exactly!
The crops were failing, he had incompetent subordinates, the situation in East Berlin worsened, Ulbricht kept nagging, and he was in poor health.
Did you read those jokes on pgs. 132 and 133? Nasty aren't they?
And meanwhile, JFK is getting advice from all sectors of the government. Dean Acheson stated that "All sources of action are dangerous....if a crisis is provoked, a bold and dangerous course may be the safest." Ambassador Thompson thought the real possibilitsy of world war likely; however Thompson then added "with uncanny clairvoyance:
"If we expect the Soviets to leave the Berlin problem as is, then we must at least expect the East Germans to seal off sector boundary." Exactly! Thompson may have been the first U.S. diplomat to predict the Berlin Wall.
Kennedy, we are told didn't "get" Krushchev at all; Eishenhower had ignored the Soviet leader since 1958 and why now?
It's rather fun to read history coming alive. When I read that Atcheson was convinced the Berlin problem had no solution short of unification and unification could not be achieved until far into the future and through a consistent demonstration of Western strength, I want to yell down through the ages, back in time, and say, Yes, you were right. It happened, in my time.
-
Like Pat and Jean, I watched Kennedy's inauguration ceremony and snatches of the balls, etc. on TV later. I don't remember when. I know Jackie's gown is in the Smithsonian room with all the other First Ladies' gowns on inauguaration nights. I'll see if I can find them on the Internet.
-
Here is one I found with video.
http://blogs.smithsonianmag.com/aroundthemall/2009/01/first-ladies-at-the-smithsonian/
It must have been in the late 1960's when we went to the Smithsonian. We had a student from Chile living with us the time and my husband thought we should show her the capitol. She was a teenager interested in American hippies at the time but we did enjoy a brief visit to Washington, D.C.
-
Click here for Maya Angelaou's poem that she wrote on Bill Clinton's request and read at his 1993 inauguration.
http://www.ssc.wisc.edu/~oliver/soc220/Lectures220/Angelou.htm Ths Poem entitled "On The Pulse of Morning" was probably a bit better received than some of the other recent inauguration poems/.
-
The Book Club Online is the oldest book club on the Internet, begun in 1996, open to everyone. We offer cordial discussions of one book a month, 24/7 and enjoy the company of readers from all over the world. everyone is welcome to join in.
Berlin 1961 by Frederick Kempe
(http://seniorlearn.org/bookclubs/berlin1961/berlin1961cvr.jpg) |
JOIN US in September as we renew our history, a more accurate history, of events that most of us remember very well. Historians are now able to not only do research into fresh new documents, but personal interviews have uncovered a wealth of information that is stunning to read. A young, untested, wealthy, U.S. president meets a Russian premier, son of a coal miner; Kennedy and Khrushchev, opposite in every way, yet holding the world in their hands. It's drama at the very best.
President Kennedy called the year a "string of disasters;" Kempe called it one of the worst of any modern presidency.
The book is divided into three parts: THE PLAYERS, THE GATHERING STORM AND THE SHOWDOWN.
Fascinating history, dramatic with new research into documents never before explored. |
The Players
(http://seniorlearn.org/bookclubs/berlin1961/khrushchev%20(159x230).jpg) (http://seniorlearn.org/bookclubs/berlin1961/ulbricht%20(151x230).jpg) (http://seniorlearn.org/bookclubs/berlin1961/kennedy%20(148x230).jpg) (http://seniorlearn.org/bookclubs/berlin1961/Adenauer%20(153x230).jpg)
Left to right: Krushchev - Ulbricht - Kennedy - Adenauer
Discussion Schedule
Sept 1-8 Part I
Sept 9-15 Part II
Sept 16-30 Part III and Epilogue
Some Topics for Consideration
Sept 9-15 Part II Pages 129-290
1. How did the President elect prepare himself for performing the duties of the office during the pre-inauguration weeks, Nov 5, 1960 – Jan 19, 1961? To whom (what individuals) did he go for council, information and advice on how to run the Presidential office? Discuss the Inauguration Ceremony. Do you have any personal recollection of it?
2. What were the results of the sub-rosa meetings between the President’s brother, Robert Kennedy and the Soviet NKVD Agent attached to the Washington Soviet Embassy, Georgi Bloshakov. More specifically from these meetings what details did Kennedy learn about Russian policy and plans and what details did Khrushchev learn about American plans?
3. Discuss the Bay of Pigs Invasion of Cuba. What last minute changes by President Kennedy in plans greatly affected the results? What were the results and the consequence of the operation? And what did the President learn from it?
4. When Kennedy agreed to meet Khrushchev was he ready? Discuss the course of the two day conference in Vienna, June 3-4 1961 and the events leading to its rather abrupt end. In particular discuss specific Kennedy failures mentioned on pp232-234.
5. How would you describe the mood of the President and his American advisors on Air Force one after the abrupt second day conference ending?
6. Discuss the situation at the end of the Vienna meeting resulting from Khrushchev’s ultimatum that he would sign a peace treaty East Germany ending WW II giving East Germany full control of its borders effectively ending U.S. rights in Berlin.
7. At this point what options were open for President Kennedy? Did Kennedy seem to realize limitations on his Power to respond? To whom did Kennedy turn for advice? What concrete steps were taken in preparation for war? Who were the hawks, who were the doves? How did a new more detailed map of East Berlin figure in determining future events?
Related links:
Frederick Kempe's home page (http://fredkempe.com/);
New York Times Book Review (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/12/books/review/book-review-berlin-1961-by-frederick-kempe.html);
Discussion Leaders: Ella (egibbons28@columbus.rr.com) & Harold (hhullar5@yahoo.com)
I will always remember the picture of Jackie in the Washington paper the next morning in her gown, going through the snowflakes with her eyes shining. It sealed the image of her a a princess. Even my mother, a life-long Republican, who couldn't stand Kennedy, loved Jackie.
The only time I saw jackie in person was earlier that year. I worked at a building that was about a block from where the kennedys lived. There was an incredibly steep street that ran from N street to M Street. (to tell you how steep it was, the building I worked in was built into the side of the hill. M street was the ground floor: N street was the eighth floor). One day, some coworkers and I were standing on M street. We looked up, and saw Jackie kennedy, 8 or nine months pregnant with john-john, wearing 4 inch high heels, walking very unsteadily down that hill. We all wanted to run and help her, but were afraid if we did, secret service men would pop out and shoot us. We all watched, not breathing, until she reached the bottom safely. I'm afraid after that I always thought that she was a princess, but not very bright! - JoanK
-
4" heels and pregnant, JOANK!! wOW! She didn't have common sense, although I think she did! So maybe she needed to feel feminine that day? Who knows. Thanks for the post.
I remember the TV documentary she did on the White House and I didn't like her whispery voice but what a good thing she did.
And, TRAUDE! We are so happy to see you here! Thanks for the post and you are the perfect person to remember all of this from your unique perspective!
-
Macmillan and Kennedy related by marriage, sharing the bond of wit, breeding and brains, both having fought in WWII, hit it off very well. Did this continue through the following years? What do we know of MacMillan, did England play a role in the Cold War?
-
Quote from Ella: 'did England play a role in the Cold War?'
What an interesting question. The more one thinks about it, the more interesting it gets. Macmillan was determined to be a player, but didn't have too many cards to play. On page 146 we're told:
'At age sixty-seven, Macmillan had grown increasingly convinced that most of London's aspirations in the world depended on its ability to influence Washington.'
Macmillan set out on that course immediately. We read about the letter he sent the president-elect that proposed a "Grand Design" for the future. That reminds of the appeal that Churchill made to Roosevelt with his "Grand Alliance."
In Europe Macmillan must have felt himself almost isolated. Khrushchev ignored him. De Galle kept him out of the plans he was concocting with Adenauer fof a new Europe.
How interesting to have Acheson appear on the stage. Present at the Creation, he now plays a significant role in the direction of affairs.
-
For me England definitely played an active role in the cold war. Particular in the earlier Berlin blockade crisis. The RAF certainly participated in the air lift supplying Berlin as did Canada and even Australia. As a member of NATO England and Canada would certainly been involved in any military conflict. By 1962 England was definitively in a weakened position much involved in the devolution of the former empire. In 1962 it was no longer the force it had been through WW II but retain a measure of power illustrated by Kennedy's stop in London after the Vienna conference with Khrushchev break down.
-
Early in Part II Kempe begins to stress the basic differences between the East/West issue’s importance to Khrushchev and Kennedy. For Khrushchev the open Berlin Border that permitted easy immigration of East German people to West Germany was the first and foremost problem. Kennedy on the other hand was concern with other issues such as the spread of Communism in Laos and elsewhere, a nuclear testing treaty, and military disarmament. Without a firm agreement on issues to be discussed, any meeting of the chiefs of State really had no chance of success.
I think there was also another issue that Kempe does not stress in the book. That is the United States and west position that any treaty concerning disarmament be back up by onsite inspections by the party opposite. The Soviet Union was particularly hostile to all suggestions of inspection inside its borders of any nature for any purpose and this issue in itself was sufficient to block any agreements for many years.
-
Interesting JONATHAN AND HAROLD. Great posts. Much to think about here, isn't there, if you love history. And I should say if you remember some of this happening, as I do.
As JONATHAN mentioned, Dean Atcheson, a gentlemen for the ages, a statesman, the grand old man of containment as he is oftimes called. Here is Wikipedia's description and isn't he handsome?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dean_Acheson
Atcheson gave JFK some good advice: "Kennedy's 1500 Cubans were no match for Castro's 25,000 Cubans" and would certainly harm the relations with the Soviets over Berllin. Indeed what prophecy, the whole affair brought us to the brink of a nuclear war.
It's not at all funny, but I did smile when I read Acheson's coment (pg. 276) in a speech before the Foreign Service Institute:
"The European view was that we were watching a gifted young amateur practice with a boomerang, when they saw, to their horror, that he had knocked himself out." A Charlie Chaplin movie went through my mind.
-
Yes, Ella, I too remember the night when Jackie hosted a TV tour of the White House. It was a Sunday night, I believe, and my attention was divided between preparing a meal - out of sight of the TV in the LR. The program was much anticipated and the subject of huge interest. I ran back and forth several times and did not really manage to see a great deal. But I well remember her saying several times,
"... and we decided to leave it just the way it was." She enunciated it clearly, but I must confess the monotonous delivery disappointed me.
Harold, oh, the eve of JFK's Inauguration day - No one who was there could ever forget the masses of snow that fell, starting in the afternoon, and continuing without pause. We didn't do much work that afternoon in the patent law firm in the Pennsylvania Building. At one point I seriously considered walking back to Arlington, where we lived, across the 14th Street Bridge, but my husband urged me to wait for him -- and I did.
I cannot remember what time it was when he finally arrived, - my young daughter and the dog in the car, but I'll never forget our being stuck in a monumental traffic jam the likes of which I never saw again, anywhere. There was no way getting to work the next morning, and
Marymount, my daughter's school, was closed.
Ella, since this is a new book, the library gave me only 2 weeks. ut I'll read as much as I can and store the knowledge. Depending on how long the waiting list is, I may hang on to the book a day or two longer.
More thought needs to be given to the new questions. However, I would like to say now that JFK certainly surrounded himelf with competent advises and that the good sense to listen to them. Moreover, I believe he had the courage of his convictions.
-
Well, today is the 10 anniversary of 911 and I''ve be been listening to the media Coverage first while still in bed on radio followed by TV, CNBC the same business channel I was watching 10 years ago when the event occurred. This Morning I plan to attend an ecumenical service at my church, Laurel Heights Methodist. conducted by the minister a rabbi , and an Islamic Cleric. I feel it should be both appropriate and interesting.
This afternoon I will be at my volunteer work and the San Antonio Missions National historical Park, meaning I will not be back here until evening. Meanwhile you are welcome to continue with either your Berlin 1961 comments or if you wish your 911 10th anniversary remembrances.
-
What a day of remembrance 911 has become. My wife and I were in the Berkshires, in western Massachusetts. We were just finishing an early tour of The Mount (the Edith Wharton place), when we heard exclamations of distress from staff members. We continued on to the Melville place up the road (Arrowhead?). Tours there had already been cancelled, so we spent some time on the parking lot listening to the radio news from New York. On the way to Cape Ann... I can still hear the solemn tolling of church bells and people queing at curbside blood clinics. For the next few days we spent more time in front of the TV than we did on the ocean beach.
-
That day was already a nightmare for me before the crashes, because I was with my husband in a hospital during one of the crises of his final illness, trying to keep him from ripping his IVs out again. The TV wasn't working, so I was listening to gossip from the nurses, plus radio broadcasts with much misleading information. I could see the hospital's helipad out the window, and soon security guards appeared there with drawn guns. It was assumed that we might get some of the Pentagon casualties and no one knew what to expect. All nurses were to remain on duty, never mind shifts, until further notice.
I only saw the TV recaps late that night, and the whole thing still seems totally surreal to me.
-
Ella said, "I remember the TV documentary she did on the White House and I didn't like her whispery voice but what a good thing she did."
I could never stand to listen to Jackie Kennedy for more than about two minutes, with her phony, breathless, monotonous sounding voice. I always wondered if she spoke that way in real life off camera, or just in public.
Marj
-
HELLO MARJ! Glad you are here and I agree with you about her voice. It seemed so affected; certainly she didn't talk that way in private.
It was a sad remembrance for us all wasn't it?
Do you want to go into the details of the Bay of Pigs or will it suffice to say it was a disaster for JFK and the country. I think the book makes clear that President Kennedy distrusted the military and most of his advisors after that. It would seem to me that Kennedy might want to back off meeting with foreign leaders after such a debacle. But no administration can ignore Europe or the world; after it was clear that Russia and the United States had nuclear bombs it was imperative that they meet and try to soften relations between the two countries and the Berlin crisis was the "most pregnant" at the time.
Were there other lessons that JFK learned from the Bay of Pigs?
And is this Bolshakov fellow a player in the eyes of the administration in dealings with the Soviet Union?
-
Somewhere in this discussion I would like to inject a brief conversation, get your opinion, on whether nuclear weapons have made the world safer or more treacherous?
-
Regarding the Bay of Pigs invasion and Ella's comment thereon, as I understand it the plan had been prepared during the past year by the Defense dept and the CIA and was modified materially during weeks before its launch to eliminate much U.S. direct involvement. Apparently Kennedy himself was involved in the fatal modification that included most if not all U.S. air support and most other direct U.S. involvement. In its revised form the navy simply put on shore some 1500 Cubans who had been partially trained in one of the Central American Countries. In the absence of continuing U.S. air cover the force was no match for the Cuban military and were quickly routed as prisoners.
The result was a long period of embarrassment for the Kennedy Administration In the end the prisoners were ransomed by the U.S. The pay off involved was in the form of U.S. farm tractors badly needed by the Cuban economy.
-
Let's have some discussion on the subrosa meetings of Robert Kennedy with Soviet NKVD Agent Georgi Bolshakov who was accredited to the Washington Soviet Embassy . The meetings were secret on Mall benches or the back seat in parked cars. I'm sure Robert Kennedy got a kick out of this extra-office assignment from his brother, but it was certainly a job for CIA professionals, and not included in the Attorney General's job description. The result as might have been expected were not good. Khrushchev ended up learning more about the U.S. Berlin position than Kennedy learned about the Russian position.
Incidentally "Subrosa" is an English Word even though our Seniorlearn spelling checker does not recognize it. It came into the language in medieval times when it was the practice to put a Rose over the door to the palace chamber where the Privy Council were meeting in a secret session. So meeting under the rose meant secret. The word came into my language when early in my career I received a tightly sealed package from my boss prominently labeled "SUBROSA." This sent me to the dictionary that gave the definition I wrote above.
-
Regarding Ella's comment calling for our comment on the use of the Atom Bomb on Japan in 1945. Iin my case it almost certainly kept me from becoming an active participation the the invasion of Japan as in early August 1945 I was in the Philippines awaiting assignment to a ship included in the planned invasion of Japan. The timely surrender after the dropping of atom bombs on two Japanese cities certainly changed the character of my life direction both short and long term.
Regarding the use of atomic energy today, in the 1960's 70's 80's I was involved in the economic planning studies that resulted the the completion of two large nuclear electric generating units that for the last 20 plus years have been producing cheap reliable electric energy to the Texas grid, Obvious The technology is not suitable for earthquake prone sites in California, Japan and other similar geographic locations.
s
-
Tomorrow between 8:00 - 10:00 PM, the ABC Network will broadcast a program relative to the JFK Administration. that will include interviews with Jackie Kennedy. I think this will include an interview never before aired that was made after the death of JFK. I think I had mentioned this planned broadcast in an earlier post. It seems certain to be relative to our present discussion and worth watching.
-
I've got another question. Was Khrushchev justified in wondering who was running things in the Kennedy administration? He had two possible candidates. Rockefeller (money). And Allen Dulles (Intelligence). No mention of the military. Kennedy could not have consulted the military on the Bay of Pigs. Our book tells us that a 'former Yale economics professor...had direct charge of the Cuban operation' (p172). Kennedy did ask Acheson for his opinion, who reacted rather scornfully, and later questioned Kennedy's judgment, more or less publicly. Then, for the record, he wrote an account of it to his old boss HST, distancing himself from these goings on in Washington.
The things these people said about each other.
Another question. What problems did Kennedy create for himself with his meddling in Cuban affairs? Was Cuba the pesky problem for him that West Berlin was for Khrushchev? Let's not forget that in the end Cuba also contributed to Khrushchev's downfall.
I can't see that Robby helped his brother at all with his diplomatic efforts. He should have left that to the State Department.
-
Thanks, Harold, for the reminder on the ABC progran on Kennedy. I'm looking forward to that.
-
Yes, HAROLD AND JONATHAN, I'm looking forward to the program tonight. Will there be new information do you think?
It's amazing that we can still construct, imperfectly at times, historical events that have been hidden for years. This Bolshakov material was all new to me; it came from oral history recorded by Bobby, and Soviet records. JFK approved of his brother's meetings with this fellow and certainly he must have known that this Russian was attempting to learn what he could from the meetings. This Bolshakov was well regarded by Washington society, JFK's friends - our book mentions Ben Bradlee (whose book A GOOD LIFE was one of our early discussions on Seniornet) and Kenny ODonnell, Ted Sorensen, Pierre Salinger. From any of those sources, the Russian could have picked up information to relay to Krushchev, but he was just a "useful pawn" and not a significant player in this drama.
In so many instances JFK showed poor judgment and, no doubt, Krushchev was justified in believing that Kennedy had demonstrated incompetence, weakness, and the resolve to bring to a successful conclusion the action in Cuba. so important to American prestige in the world.
Good questions, JONATHAN, I was amazed also that JFK put those men in charge of the Cuban operation. The whole operation was disastrous.
HAROLD, I didn't mean dropping an atom bomb. What I meant to ask if the "threat" of nuclear weapons has made the world safer? No country wants to be annihilated and one knows that if he drops the bomb, his enemy will do the same. There are all kinds of ways to look at it, but I tend to think that is perhaps the best way? For example, Iran now has nuclear capability but will she use it on Israel or her enemies? I doubt it!
-
Knowing that the A bomb is out there and more and more people have access to it is like knowing there is a bomb hidden somewhere in your house. I spent most of the 50s working for a top secret research group: we were all convinced that the Russians were going to bomb us any minute. it got to the point where every time a plane flew over, we would all stop what we were doing and wait.
In retrospect, that was paranoa. There was even a group that made a report to the president saying that since Russia was going to bomb us, we should get in first and bomb them. Luckily, the president was not so paranoid. but it only takes one crazy person with power to do untold damage.
-
Good points Jonathan. I can see why Khrushchev and others might have wondered who was running the government but actually by the constitution it was the President who happened to be John F. Kennedy. Truman had pointed this out a few years earlier with his “The buck stops here,” remark. For me the question is more did he know what he was doing and did he make the best decisions? Were they the right decisions? Looking back over the short term things do not look very good. Through the summer, fall, and winter of 1961 people both East and West learned to live with Cold War tension and uncertainty. Looking at the short term spanning the rest of 1961 and even the next decade we can’t give him and his successors high grades with people East and West learning to live with cold war uncertainty. It was some 2 decades later before the atmosphere began to cool with a certain understanding termed “détente,” and another decade after that before a really peaceful permanent resolution was achieved. So in summary though both Kennedy and Khrushchev may not always have made the best decision, at least they avoided making the wrong decisions that would have begun WW III.
This leads to another question. Does the U.S. system of selecting new Presidents lead to inexperienced but popular individuals being elected in that office? JFK was young with a good education , but only one term in the Senate when he was elected President. In fact service in the legislative branch is quite different from service in the Executive branch, particularly the Chief Executive Position. This inexperience necessitated the crash course in Executive Management following the Jan 20th inauguration that continued until the departure for Vienna to meet Khrushchev. Interestingly our current President has a similar one term Senate apprenticeship before his election. Other recent Governors have previous been State Governors again positions quite different from the Presidency.
Jonathan is the Canadian Parliamentary system more certain to install a more thoroughly experienced Prime Minister than our American system? It appears to me this might be likely because as I understand it most new PM’s have served long apprenticeships in the Cabinet or in a Shadow Cabinet in cases where his party is out of power. Would this system not be more likely to a produce a more prepared Chief Executive?
-
Canadian politics have (has) been turned on its head in the last few months. Everything seems up in the air. We had been limping along for five years with a minority government (doing an excellent caretaking job). Neither of the old, historical Liberal or Conservative parties managed to get a majority of seats in the House of Commons in the frequent elections. Imagine a third party in the U.S. with its delicate balance between Republicans and Democrats. Not only did we have a relatively small socialist party (doing well with, say, thirty seats in the House) but also a fify-seat Quebec Bloc party dedicated to breaking up the country. And then the miraculous happened.
In our May, 2011 election the leader of the small socialist party swept Quebec with his charisma and offer of an alternate choice and added the Bloc seats to his own and achieved official Opposition status in the House, destroying the Liberal party, and giving the Conservative party a 'temporary' majority. Jack Layton looked like a possible Prime Minister down the road. But Fate stepped in and killed our Canadian hero. Layton fell victim to cancer just a couple of months after his most unusual political victory. The Prime Minister, out of gratitude and national pride offered the family a state funeral for Jack, who now enjoys an icon status in our proud Canadian hearts.
-
I fell way behind in the reading, have only now gotten to the eve of Vienna. The advisors on both sides are playing a crucial role in keeping Kennedy and Khrushchev from understanding each other's intentions. Both deliberately and accidentally, each side is downplaying the more unpalatable bits in reports to the leaders. Bolshakov doesn't know everything, and doesn't tell everything he does know to Robert Kennedy. Robert fills in the gaps with mistaken assumptions. Tommy Thompson soft-pedals crucial parts in his reports to Kennedy. As a result, Kennedy is taking a long time to appreciate how focussed Khrushchev is on Berlin, and Khrushchev is taking a long time to take Kennedy seriously.
Probably neither man would consent to a meeting if he really understood the other's thoughts, and yet a meeting seems to be necessary. Quite a dilemma.
-
A couple of striking details from the Paris interlude: the bathtub meetings are amusing to think of--JFK lolling in that huge rococco tub, talking policy.
And the medications! Kennedy is deciding the fate of the world while high on amphetamines!
-
A crazy person, JOANK, yes, all we can hope for is that none of the leaders of the world that have the atomic bomb are that crazy. It would mean armageddon, don't you think?
" Does the U.S. system of selecting new Presidents lead to inexperienced but popular individuals being elected in that office? " HAROLD, how would you propose we select a president? Was Eisenhower experienced in goverment affairs? In the past few decades we have had several governors elected president - should that be a prerequisite? Or Congresisonal experience? What?
JONATHAN, your ups-downs in government reflect our own, it han't been a good time world wide to be a leder, one recession after another, if not depression. Too bad about your Jack Layton, though, fate will step in where least likely.
If we had only known about JFK's health problems! And those medications, which he shared with Jackie at times. But what would we have done?
PATH, one wonders how these two men ever managed a meeting, each made speeches, got advice; while in Paris De Gaulle actually advised Kennedy to use force if necessary - "de Gaulle told Kennedy he could deter the Soviets only with a willingness to use nuclear weapons, which was precisely what the president wanted to avoid."
Scary! And more frightening when we remember nuclear missiles in Cuba!
My thoughts turn to how this all came about. As HAROLD said earlier, the Soviet Union was allowed by Eisenhower to enter Berlin before the Allies because they had suffered so many casaulties; however, probably all four victors felt the division of the country and Berlin a mistake that should have been avoided. There could have been a better way and all this would have been avoided.
-
The following summarizes the schedule for the completion of our discussion as planned by Ella and myself:
We will divide Part 3 into halves with Chapters 13, 14, and 15 our subject during the 3rd week. Ella will provide new Discussions Considerations in the heading for these chapters beginning Friday morning (September 16th).
Chapters 16, 17, and 18 will come the following 4th week beginning Friday September 23rd. I will provide Discussion Considerations for the 4th week that will appear in the heading September 23rd. This will allow conclusion as scheduled September 30th.
-
Ella asked: " Does the U.S. system of selecting new Presidents lead to inexperienced but popular individuals being elected in that office? " HAROLD, how would you porpose we select a president? Was Eisenhower experienced in goverment affairs? In the past few decades we have had several governors elected president - should that be a prerequisite? Or Congresisonal experience? What?
My earlier post concerning our current systems propensity to select presidential candidates based on an individuals personal popularity stems from my personal observance concerning the winner of nominations and elections going back to 1940. As I see it personal popularity based on appearance, speaking ability and other rather superficial factors carry more weight with the voting public than real background knowledge of issues facing the new President his first day in office. Fortunately most new Presidents have not faced the immediate pending crisis that Kennedy faced in 1961.
Today I think under our current custom the Vice Presidency might be a better place for presidential training. As I understand it, the Vice President now is well informed on details of all issues of the Presidential Office. This is in marked contracts to the situation in earlier times when a Vice president knowledge of day to day presidential activity was what he read in the newspaper.
Successful Legislative and State Chief Executive experience provide an indication of potential competence but such a background offers no knowledge of the mass multiple issue details faced the first day at the office. In particular JFK and Our current president came to the presidency with less than a single Senate term.
I noted that the Parliamentary Government as developed in The U.K. and now used by the former Dominions and many European and Oriental democracies provides a better prepared in-coming Prime Minister because of prior executive assignments as ministers of the various department or in shadow governments. An Example when Winston Churchill became Prime Minister on May 10, 1940 he knew exactly what the dismal war situation and was prepared immediately to do what it was in his power to do about it. True the Parliamentary System by combining the Executive and Legislative Functions loses the advantages stemming from the planned constitutional separation of legislative, executive and judicial functions.
-
JFK only felt comfortable in his hot tub. If only he had invited Khrushchev to join him there. Their discussions might have been more profitable. Actually, I think the Vienna talks were a success. More so for Kennedy. He was there only to get to know his adversary. He came to talk, not to deal. Obviously they talked a different talk. It was smart of Kennedy to permit Khrushchev to sound off. Kennedy was content to stand pat. What could he have wanted from Khrushchev? Khrushchev had the pressing problems. Kennedy didn't dare make any concessions after the Cuban debacle.
What interesting talk they had that first day. Comparing systems. Kennedy talking freedom and Khrushchev talking historical necessity. And through it all these two men were pioneering nuclear diplomacy.
-
My thoughts turn to how this all came about. As HAROLD said earlier, the Soviet Union was allowed by Eisenhower to enter Berlin before the Allies because they had suffered so many casaulties; however, probably all four victors felt the division of the country and Berlin a mistake that should have been avoided. There could have been a better way and all this would have been avoided.
It wasn't just the Soviet Union's past casualties that led to Eisenhower letting them get to Berlin first. Pushing across the country to get to Berlin first would have cost considerable American lives, and Ike was unwilling to spend lives for a city when the war was essentially already won.
-
Regarding decision holding the advance of Western forces allowing the Soviet Army to Take Perlin. I think this decision was either expressed or at any rate implied from the Yalta Agreement. I don't think Eisenhower had much problem with the decision, but I suspect Patton and maybe Montgomery did. It certainly saved the lives of may Western troops.
-
Just some bits and pieces FYI.
David Halberstam says in his book "The Fifties" that Harry Truman had formed a group of three to advise him about continuing reasearch on a hydrogen bomb. At the mtg On Jan 31, 1950 with Truman the three were voicing their concerns that an H bomb could mean the end of humanity. Truman interrupted them to say he thought an H bomb would never be used, but because of the way the Russians were behaving he thought he had no recourse. The mtg lasted SEVEN minutes. "Can the Russians do it?" Truman asked.all three men nodded yes. "In that case," T said,"we have no choice. We'll go ahead." it was Truman's first major decision of the decade.
!?!?!? (He THOUGHT an H bomb would never be used) holy cow! But so far he's been right!
So as long as we have reasonable decision-makers, i think atomic weapons have been something of a deterrent, now "medicated" decision makers concers me, altho JFK made it work.
Eisenhower obviously had a lot of administrative experience in the army and as president of Columbia U. Did that seem to help him as president of the country? I think working in other executive postions does not help with being president because in other exec postions you can give orders or make a "request" and it happens - not generally true when head of the exec
branch, working to get legislation passed is a whole different animal. Obama attempting to be that "inclusive" administrator hasn't worked either. As i said before, that is an on the job training position, there doesn't appear to be any way to prepare. Maybe being in the cabinet or being vp is the closest - or maybe having been the spouse of a setting president! ;D
Between Diane Sawyer's dramatic inflection of every sentence and Jackie's breathless idealized stories about Jack, i was close to being nauseous watching the show last night. I don't think it added anything to historical knowledge and may distort it for people who have no knowledge of the Kenndys.
Jean
-
Experience can help in some ways. After Kennedy's assassination, LBJ got Congress to pass a lot of things that Kennedy had wanted but hadn't been able to get. Partly it was reaction to the shooting, but it was also because LBJ had so much experience in how to get what you wanted out of Congress. That doesn't help you with international relations, though.
Truman made the only decision he could. Since he couldn't prevent the bomb from being made by others, he had to make it too.
-
With the A bomb decisions, remember that now we're not just talking abouit the leaders of the US and Russia, we're talking about leaders of many smaller countries as well (North Korea? Iran?)
-
Regarding Jean’s comments on ABC’s airing of the Jackie Kennedy Interviews, I sort of enjoyed it as an interesting peak back into the past. But it was a one sided look back: a fantasy vision of a Camelot that really never was. For this reason it really did not add much to his history.
Regarding LBJ success in obtaining passage of Major Civil Rights Legislation after Kennedy's death; this was indeed the major success of his administration. I agree with PatH's comments that Truman made the right decision in continuing the research relative to nuclear weapons. As she said he made the only decision the he could make under the circumstances. It would have been a terrible situation to have been without them during the later Cold War years.
-
It wasn't my comments. But I'm not surprised. most reporting is one-sided.
-
"Oh, God, can you ever imagine what would happen to the country if Lyndon was president?" JFK. Jacqueline remembers hearing him say it.
Your presidential selection process in the U.S.A. is about as democratic as it could possibly get. After the votes are counted it is the office that makes the man. Or woman, when her turn comes.
-
I think there is too much money involved in politics. To campaign the candidates need huge amounts of money. The candidates become hostage to the Corporations because of donations. Thereby the ordinary person in the street has little representation. Policy making is often dictated by the big donors. I think politics today is extremely corrupt. That includes the political system in my own small country.
As for Presidential decisions I believe leaders are only as good as their advisors. No man can know everything. JFK must have had advisors. I know our PM is clueless and relies on his two henchman. In fact so much so that we believe he is only a figurehead. Our PM has little political experience and his background is International banking. I do not believe his past profession qualifies him to lead the country. People like his smile. ( his nickname in banking was the smiling assassin)
I worry about a rogue nation using nuclear weapons. I wish they had never been invented and even my father was horrified at the destruction in Japan. ( he was there just after the Japanese capitulated.)
-
I have been quite ill. Several weeks ago, I passed out and fell off of my toilet. I woke up pn my bathroom floor, with a large bump on my head. I had a concussion. Have not been able to read, or absorb. I am finally begging
tp fee; a bit better/
About a week after my fall, I came down with the flu. So, I haven't been online. A few weeks in bed,nnin and I am begining tp feel mpre like myself. I will try to catch up.
Sheila
-
The Book Club Online is the oldest book club on the Internet, begun in 1996, open to everyone. We offer cordial discussions of one book a month, 24/7 and enjoy the company of readers from all over the world. everyone is welcome to join in.
Berlin 1961 by Frederick Kempe
(http://seniorlearn.org/bookclubs/berlin1961/berlin1961cvr.jpg) |
JOIN US in September as we renew our history, a more accurate history, of events that most of us remember very well. Historians are now able to not only do research into fresh new documents, but personal interviews have uncovered a wealth of information that is stunning to read. A young, untested, wealthy, U.S. president meets a Russian premier, son of a coal miner; Kennedy and Khrushchev, opposite in every way, yet holding the world in their hands. It's drama at the very best.
President Kennedy called the year a "string of disasters;" Kempe called it one of the worst of any modern presidency.
The book is divided into three parts: THE PLAYERS, THE GATHERING STORM AND THE SHOWDOWN.
Fascinating history, dramatic with new research into documents never before explored. |
The Players
(http://seniorlearn.org/bookclubs/berlin1961/khrushchev%20(159x230).jpg) (http://seniorlearn.org/bookclubs/berlin1961/ulbricht%20(151x230).jpg) (http://seniorlearn.org/bookclubs/berlin1961/kennedy%20(148x230).jpg) (http://seniorlearn.org/bookclubs/berlin1961/Adenauer%20(153x230).jpg)
Left to right: Krushchev - Ulbricht - Kennedy - Adenauer
Discussion Schedule
Sept 1-8 Part I
Sept 9-15 Part II
Sept 16-23 Part III
Some Topics for Consideration
Sept 16-23 Part III Pages 293-363
1. Why did the President turn to Dean Acheson for advice on how to deal with the Soviet Union? Who was he? Was his advice helpful to the President?
2. Who were the SLOBS?
3. Schlesinger, another presidential advisor, warned JFK of “excessive concentration on military and operational problems.” What other “wars” or “altercations” have ensued due to such preparedness? What was Henry Kissinger’s advice?
4. Was there a reason why the Secretary of Defense, the State Dept. and the Pentagon were slow to respond to JFK’s requests for memos as to how to handle the Berlin situation?
5. Why was Krushchev in a hurry to get the Berlin situation solved? Why was the building of the wall the only solution at the time for Ulbricht and Krushchev?
6. Were you surprised at the speed of the Wall going up? What does this sentence mean - “Khrushchev's decision to operate within Kennedy’s guidelines was now operational?” (pg. 352)
7. What were the responses to the wall by General Watson, the American commandant in Berlin?
Related links:
Frederick Kempe's home page (http://fredkempe.com/);
New York Times Book Review (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/12/books/review/book-review-berlin-1961-by-frederick-kempe.html);
Discussion Leaders: Ella (egibbons28@columbus.rr.com) & Harold (hhullar5@yahoo.com)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ella Gibbons -
SHEILA, so sorry all that has been happening to you. Do take care!!! So happy you are back online, it does pass the time.
WE ARE WAY OFF THE SUBJECT AND WE JUST HAVE TODAY TO FINISH THIS SECTION.
I only have a moment, but will return later this afternoon.
-
Didn't you all think that chapter on Vienna fascinatinag? THE STUFF OF HISTORY
"The world's two most powerful men were facing off over their most intractable and explosive issue."
It could have ended in a nuclear war.
Both men talking about their casualties in WWII and their right to territory as victors.
Ksrushchev stating that there would be two states, East and West Berlin and Kennedy stressing that WEST Berlin is vital to our national security and that it is vital to the interests of the U.S.
The word "West" was noted; however JFK did say that the U.S. is in Berlin and plans to stay.
So what is the conflict here and what should JFK have done instead?
-
Early in this discussion we had several posts commenting on which particular former U.S Presidents deserve to be called truly Great Presidents. I suppose we pretty much decided this designation was much a matter of individual opinion. Well yesterday in the mail I received a catalog that contained a list of one noted PhD historian’s opinion listing his version of the 12 most worthy of this designation.
The catalog was from The Great Courses, Inc Co. (www.greatcourses.com ). Several of us seniors living here at Chandler have orders courses like a 24 , 1/2hr each lectures on the Dead Sea Scrolls. Others that I have ordered were on history subjects and my friend Jean has some on art and Music history. Also many other subjects are available. This particular sales catalog included a series entitled “The 12 Greatest Presidents.” It was by a PhD historian from the American University, a whopping 48, ½ hour lectures series (a total about 2 hours on each President). From the catalog I have no way of noting how these 12 were selected as only their names were listed. The list included George Washington, Thomas Jefferson Andrew Jackson, James Polk, Abraham Lincoln, Theodore Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, Franklin D. Roosevelt, Harry Truman, John F. Kennedy, Lyndon Johnson, and Ronald Regan.
This list includes 5 War time Presidents, Polk, Lincoln, Wilson, Franklin Roosevelt, and Truman. It also includes 2 others who achieved the presidency largely as the result of their Wartime command service, Washington, and I suppose Theodore Roosevelt can be included here.
I was sorted surprised about the inclusion of LBJ but I would have included him because of his service in getting the Civil Rights Bills through the Senate and signing them into law.
(Some of you who click the Great Discussions link given above will note reference to degree programs. I don't know about that, but all of us here a Chandler already have our degrees or don't need them. Our interest is just mind exercise, and these courses are really good for that purpose.)
-
ELLA: "what should JFK have done instead?"
Indeed. The whole premise of the book seems to be that major foreign policy decisions depend on minute details of who said what and who understood what. I guess this is the premise of all diplomacy. I've always wondered to what extent and when it was true.
kruschev had his position all written out. he knew what he wanted to do. Kempe said that he wouldn't have given it to JFK if JFK had been more willing to negotiate. How does he know that? Negotiate what? He wanted unlimited access to West Berlin: K didn't want to give it.
Perhaps instead of having useless arguments about ideology, they should have had advisors in rooms talking about details of access.
-
I'm way behind in the reading, but will try to catch up in the next few days.
-
Kiwilady, I like your post #198. Your description of the role of money in your elections certainly describes elections in the U.S., only multiplied by something like 10,000. The money is not just from Corporation but from labor unions, other special interest groups, and in the U.S. even from the thousand of so super rich individuals who think nothing of multiple 6 figure donations. I’m not really sure that this should be celebrated as democracy.
At least if your model retains the custom of the English model your general election campaigns are short. If I remember correctly the last UK campaign was completed in just 1 month’s time. This leads to economy. Our presidential process in the U.S., covers the better part of two years. The one going on now having begun this spring will not be complete until November 2012, if we are lucky and additional time is not required for court appeals.
-
I would like to hear more comment from each of you out there on your take on the situation faced by President Kennedy after the abrupt break down of the Vienna Conference. How did President Kennedy during the summer and fall of 1961 respond to Khrushchev’s ultimatum that he would unilaterally conclude a treaty with the East German republic formally ending WW II giving it full Control of its borders with the termination of Western powers right of access to and administration of the western sections of Berlin. What were his choices?
How was War avoided considering the situation in Berlin that summer when Western and Russian Tanks armed with gun turrets pointed at each other?
-
It wasn't just idle ideology talk that was part of JFK's evasive negotiating strategy. He even tried getting Khrushchev to talk about his childhood. We're told about ten minutes of small talk at one point, none of which was memorable. I can't blame Khrushchev for getting angry. He had come to Vienna hoping to get somewhere with the problems he had with postwar Europe. One of which we are told was his worry that Hitler's generals might get their hands on nuclear weapons. Western Germany was a member of NATO. If the U.S. were to pull out of Europe, with a resurgent Germany...it was Khrushchev who might make a better case for national security problems. He turned bellicose out of frustration.
Surely the author exaggerates when he has Kennedy leaving Vienna stunned, almost shell-shocked, sharing his anxieties with newspapermen, aides and the British Prime Minister. He's reassured by the Brits that the West is winning. Kennedy had come to Vienna to meet and get to know his adversary, and polish his image as one resolved to...what? He would have done well to send his brother, scrappy little Robby. Perhaps he should have taken Macmillan, Adenauer and de Gaulle along. Methinks they should have been at the table.
-
And of course Herr Ulbricht.
-
JoanK, what you said echoes what I was thinking too. Kempe makes a big point of what a failure the Vienna meeting was for Kennedy. And it's true, Khrushchev bullied rings around Kennedy, who was totally unprepared for Khrushchev's brutal style. Kennedy ignored advice and got bogged down in ideological debates and, used to getting everything he wanted by charm, was at a loss when this had no effect.
But how different could the outcome have been? Khrushchev was absolutely determined about the Berlin issue, would have brought it up no matter what Kennedy had done, and would not have been deflected from his major demands.
So the main effects of his failure were a loss of prestige, Khrushchev's belief that Kennedy was a weaker President than he ended up being, and the failure of the two to establish any sort of personal basis for making their interactions smoother.
-
Harold: great presidents. Polk? Really? Guess I'd better read a bit about him.
-
PatH read the Wikipedia account. He was president one term March 1845 - March 1849. Texas Joined the Union Dec 29, 1849 and the Mexican war began shortly thereafter. After reading Wikipedia I'm inclined to agree that he deserves the great designation.
Click the Following: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_K._Polk
-
For my money the Vienna meeting was really more of a draw than defeat for Kennedy. True Khrushchev seemed to beat him in every round, but really Khrushchev did not get anything of substance. He was left with his ultimatum that he knew would probably start WW III. He and his political rivals back in Russia did not really want that either. They were certainly aware that it would become atomic and they weren't keen on that either. In the end they had to find another way to keep East Germany populated, and they eventually found a way by building the wall that sufficed for nearly 30 years.
Tomorrow we move to part 3 to talk about how close we came.
-
New questions in heading, new chapters to read and discuss!
Here is a summary on Wikipedia which is shorter and possibly corresponds to our book:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vienna_summit
There are more sites on the web, but with what we have we can piece together what happened during this turbulent time that led to the Cold War.
THANK YOU ALL SO VERY MUCH FOR YOUR POSTS AND THIS ENGAGING DISCUSSION. I love to read the posts. I love history. I love debating what could have happened; what happened, what didn't.
-
>Regarding Ella's first question: Why did the President turn to Dean Acheson for advice on how to deal with the Soviet Union? Who was he? Was his advice helpful to the President?
I think President Kennedy spent more time with Dean Acheron than any of the other prominent presidential advisors. This is based on the apparent number or pages in our book devoted to his presidential briefings. Dean Acheron had a long career going back to the Franklin Roosevelt era when he served as an undersecretary of treasury and in other posts. He was appointed Secretary of State by Truman where he served through most of the Truman terms. During these years he played leading roles in the administration of the Marshal Plan, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), and the Berlin Blockade controversy. During the 60’s and into the 70’s he continued in the roll of Presidential mentor sort of comparable to the role of Bernard Baruch during the years of the 1920’s and 30’s.
In my judgement he did well as anyone could have possibly done in preparing the novice Kennedy for Khrushchev in June, 1961.
For more information on Dean Acheson click the following:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dean_Acheson
-
Harold - thank you for those links. I know Wikipedia must be read carefully and sometimes skeptically because anybody can post anything, but i have found historical postings to be very accurate. People have obviously spent a lot of time and thought to have it be a true "citizen's" encyclopedia.
I thought the essay on Acheson was particularly good. Didn't he look just like the stereotype of the intellectual aristocrat that he was? The essay brought to mind David Halberstam's book title "The Best and the Brightest", a title, which according to Halberstam, was ironical because it is about the lead-up to our involvement in VietNam. I sometimes wonder if the best and the brightest give us any better decisions on national events than "ordinary" people would. Although Acheson's decions seemed to be pretty good.
It is fun to have the mind be activated with all those 50s names that i had known so well and have forgotten about.
-
How about one of you out there answering Ella's 2nd question, Who were the SLOBs? And of course What do these letters stand for?
-
Just a short note (while fixing dinner). Before WWII the U.S. did not think of itself, nor did the world, as a world power, or did it? It seemed to come, not gradually, but thrust upon us after the United Kingdom was broken up into dependent countries. Is this the way it seemed to you?
I'll quote Dean Acheson (in a memo to JFK, 1961) - "The issue over Berlin, which Khrushchev is now moving toward a crisis.....is far more than an issue over that city. It is broader and deeper than even the German question as a whole. It has become an issue of resolution between the U.S.A. and the U.S.S.R., the outcome of which will go far to determine the confidence of Europe-indeed, of the world--in the United States."
Now back to the book-
-
To still chew over the Vienna meeting a bit: what I said above might sound like I don't believe that diplomacy accomplishes anything. that's clearly not true: diplomacy can work miracles: Nixon in china, and the fellow who got talks going in South Africa and Northern Ireland. But those were all cases where history and emotions prevented the participants to agreeing to things that were clearly in their best interests. In Berlin, the interests of East and West really were opposed.
Now i'm into reading the differing advice of the hard and soft liners (the SLOBS). I'm having trouble understanding exactly what each wanted JFK to do. A little bluff versus a big bluff?
-
Have been wondering what the British and Frence thought? Must have had some influence. Was France too involved with Algeria to take notice?
Don't believe they could have gotten away with constructing the wall in such secrecy now. Where were our spies? asleep at the switch in East Berlin? What about Adenaur? Did I miss his reaction?
-
KIDSAL, I don't think the British or French were too happy that Kennedy had agreed to meet with Krushchev in Europe without inviting a delegation from their respective countries to attend. Was he apprehensive about their being there? What was his thinking, I wonder. I don't remember reading about that.
JOANK, as I understand the difference between the hardliners and the "soft" was the amount of force to be used by the U.S. against the Soviet Union to protect West Berlin. Atcheson was a hardliner, definitely, who would not have hesitated to use the nuclear bomb or at least the threat thereof to protect our interests. Kennedy was not so inclined; his friends, those closest to him, were the softliners such as Schlesinger, Henry Kissinger, Sorensen, etc.
PATH: Your statement - "the main effects of his (JFK') failure were a loss of prestige, Khrushchev's belief that Kennedy was a weaker President than he ended up being, and the failure of the two to establish any sort of personal basis for making their interactions smoother."
Right On! Which led to the Cuban Missile crisis the following year. Krushchev perceived him as a weak president; however that's another story.
Thanks, JEAN, for your comments. Always relevant.
The pictures in this section are particularly sad I think; JFK looks so very, very young to be put in such a difficult position so early in his presidency. We are very fortunate that it did not come to a full-fledged war. heaven knows if any of us would be alive.
-
Like you said, Ella, this is the stuff of history.
How extremely interesting to read about the advice coming at Kennedy from both hard and softliners. Wasn't Acheson a 'take charge' man when asked for advice. First and foremost, he was convinced, was a show of strength and resolve. It seems almost as if he was deliberately setting out to create a war mentality, but he did have a lot of experience dealing with the Commies. He did come with lots of justification for his strong views.
I would have liked more information on the hard and softliners in Moscow. There was obviously lots of politics for Khrushchev, as there was for Kennedy. The October Party Congress was forever looming down the road for the Soviet leader. He seemed so jubilant after Vienna for having scored so many points. Even doing a Cossack dance, making it look easy.
-
Hi JONATHAN. Yes, Krushchev went home dancing at a birthday party like a "cow on ice" as he said. Strange that he became so tough when he got home, reversing reforms of the judicial system, increasing the use of the death penalty, etc. I would have thought the opposite - that his "victory" in Vienna would have been a cause to celebrate with the people of Russia - an opportunity to show genuine leadership
-
As our author pointed out the acceptance of the Acheson plan outlined in his July 7th memo left little choice except being prepared to fight at best a conventional battle or at worst an atomic war. The only other choice was appeasement by acceptance of the Russian demand. Schlesinger put it crudely as simply "are you chicken or not." I guess this made Schlesinger one of the Slobs (Soft Liners on Berlin). He was support by one who became a very prominent leader of US foreign affairs through the 70's and 80's. This was Henry Kissinger who was brought in as one of the principal planners of U.S. foreign Policy. He too at this time would have to be classified as a SLOB.
-
JFK looks so very, very young to be put in such a difficult position so early in his presidency. We are very fortunate that it did not come to a full-fledged war. heaven knows if any of us would be alive.
I was particularly impressed with the reaction of Stewart Alsop, who saw JFK in London right after Vienna. Alsop felt that this was a wake-up call for JFK, and that he was now coming to terms with what was needed to do the job he had to do, and was finally starting to be the real president he needed to be.
-
I've only read the first chapter and a bit of the second in this week's chunk, but I'm particularly struck with how clearly Kennedy is drawing lines in the sand. By his constant use of West (Berlin, Germany, etc) he is saying "this is where I won't let you go any farther, this is where I'll fight". Of course he isn't thinking of the wall, nobody expected that, but he knows what he can get away with, what his allies will back up, and what he musn't give away
-
KIDSAL:"Where were our spies?" That's a good point. Supposedly, Berlin was absolutely crawling with spies. What were they doing?
PAT: Yes, he says it very clearly.
Later, Kruschev (I think it was) said in discussing the wall that the West wouldn't fight over the wall: that it would actually be relieved to be rid of the problem of the refugees. I kind of get that impression as well. What do you all think?
-
I've been reading the planning leading up to putting up the barbed wire (fell asleep last night just before they implemented it). It has the morbid fascination of watching someone handle a difficult technical problem efficiently.
I was fascinated by Kruschev poring over maps, with his technical background needing to be sure it was possible technically before he gave the go-ahead. When I said that to PatH, she said that if only Kennedy had done that before the Bay of Pigs!
-
There is evidence that Khrushchev despite his bluster and bullying at the face to face meeting in Vienna was still aware that atomic war would be devastating for Russia as well as the rest of the world and that some alternate plan might better accomplish his objective. This evidence appears first on Page 284 with the section on the new detailed map of the east/west border through Berlin. Previously because of the border’s complexity it was thought that it would be impossible for the Government to close the border. The new map prepared by Russian army engineers gave detail such a closure could be possible.
In fact Khrushchev without abandoning his plan to force the West out of Berlin approved plans for the Wall’s construction. As we are reading in the books the construction was well planed and the border was rather well secured (by tje wall, police and armed forces) in a relatively short time. Khrushchev of course continued pursuit of his plan elimination of the Western Powers from Berlin, a pursuit that as the years pasted grew less and less likely, finally to vanish entirely with the unification of Germany in the early 1990’s.
Our Author seems to attribute Khrushchev’s reluctant resort to the wall to the fact that he came to realized that Kennedy would fight for Berlin. He approved the Wall as his alternative because he believed that no World leader (Kennedy included) would go to war over the wall. I see its use by the Russians and its toleration by the Western Powers as a fortunate compromise that saved the World of the most grievous war imaginable.
-
Click the following for information on JFK’s "Ich bin ein Berliner" speech on June 26, 1963.
"Ich bin ein Berliner" speech delivered in Berlin June 26, 1963
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ich_bin_ein_Berliner
-
The chessboard for Kennedy and Khrushchev was world wide. How different for the German players trying to patch up their fractured Vaterland. Many of them had been fighting over its politics for many years.
Erich Mielke (p334) is a good example. He appears on the scene as the Stasi (police) chief, with his 85,000 fulll-time domestic spies and 170,000 informants, more efficient even than the earlier Gestapo. What a history he has:
Back in 1931, at only twenty-four years of age, Mielke had begun his thuggish communist career with the murder of two Berlin police officers who had been lured to a political rally for the planned hit in front of the Babylon Cinema. After the killings, Mielke crowed about it among comrades at a local pub....(now on the run) Party comrades smuggled Mielke out of Germany, where he was convicted in absentia. He then began his education and training in Moscow as a Soviet political intelligence officer. p334
Hitler came out of that milieu, with notions of a thousand-year Reich. What a breeding ground for ignorant armies fighting in the dark.
-
SUCH GOOD COMMENTS ON THIS SECTION. Thank you all so much.
I think most of us remember it all and most of us will always think of JFK as a beloved young president cut down in his own country in his first term of the presidency. Would he have been elected again?
I think at times we all feel guilty for the death of he and Bobby and MLK. Such a terrible time in our nation's history.
And then we lived through fascism and communism in all their ugliness and survived it all.
I'm not sure (I probably read it in this section somewhere) how the world felt about the wall. I do know this - I have a bookmark here - and I quote:
"Under four-power agreements, Kennedy would have had every right to order his military to knock down the barriers put up that morning by East German units that had no right to operate in Berlin. On July 7, 1945, the U.S., Soviet, British and French military governors of Germany had agreed that they would ensure unrestricted movement throughout Berlin, That had been reconfirmed again by the four-power agreement that had ended the Berlin blockade. However, Kennedy had made clear through several channels before August 13 that he would not respond if Khrushchev and the East Germans restricted their actions to their own territory."
-
"However, Kennedy had made clear through several channels before August 13 that he would not respond if Khrushchev and the East Germans restricted their actions to their own territory."
Yes, and you can see that both Kruschev and Kennedy are sticking carefully to that line.
-
KIDSAL: we underestimated the spies! It says in the book that a spy DID warn the West, and it was simply dismissed as "impossible". (pp. 344-5)
-
KIDSAL: we underestimated the spies! It says in the book that a spy DID warn the West, and it was simply dismissed as "impossible". (pp. 344-5)
Oh dear, again and again "Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose". Glad i learned that phrase in my high school French bcs it does keep happening.
-
THANKS, JOANK AND KIDSAL for your Q&A. Isn't it all interesting!
You may be interested in this General Heinz Hoffman, army commander, in charge of all those soldiers that were arrayed, as our book relates, "against their own people." He was a nice looking man, looks like a soldier.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heinz_Hoffmann
What a well planned and carried out deployment of supplies and soldiers for the Wall, August 12, 1961.
a cool clear night, perfect for the purpose of building a wall. "Perhaps Mother Nature was a communist."
It seems strange to me that a number of these East Germans were born in Germany and yet ended up as communists. How did that happen! I know they were threatened, some imprisoned, but did they see communism, or the Soviet Union, as a country where freedom existed for the individual? Didn't they look around Russia or Poland and open their eyes to the ordinary folk and what they were going through? Did they believe that escaping from Hitler's Germany into Stalin's Russia was going to be a better life?
-
A pretty wild story, isn't it? History now, but blood, sweat and tears, then. Worries and sleepless nights at the very least. Sure, Khrushchev, trying to put his finger in the dike, followed Kennedy's guidelines. Preserving West Berlin's status and access to the city. No impeding the movement of officials. Restricting actions to East German territories.
A desperate Khrushchev then followed Ulbricht's battle tactics. Operation Rose was carried out in the best German tradition. Such speed and efficiency. Logistical excellence. Blitzkrieg movements. All over before the other guy wakes up.
Can you believe this? It was win/win for both sides. We're told Kennedy couldn't hide his relief: 'a wall is a hell of a lot better than war.' Khrushchev, 'congratulated himself on having outmaneuvered the U.S., the British, and the French without military conflict.' Alas, it brought on hubris, and Khrushchev started thinking of other victories. In the end it was all about winning a battle and losing the war.
-
I remember the Sunday morning when the Wall construction had begun. I woke up about 8:00 AM, went out to the porch for the San Antonio Express to read that the construction of the Wall had begun and the entire Berlin border was sealed off by police and army Russian army units. I knew the situation was in high crisis mode the night before, but I had never head or a Wall as a possible course action nor did have any idea of what results might follow.
Of course we must remember that in approving its construction, Khrushchev had not in any way given up his greater plan of forcing the Western Powers out of Berlin. In fact the world faced major crises over Berlin in each of the following several years and frequent further nasty situation until the final collapse of the Russian Communist regime in 1990.
-
ELLA: "It seems strange to me that a number of these East Germans were born in Germany and yet ended up as communists. How did that happen! I know they were threatened, some imprisoned, but did they see communism, or the Soviet Union, as a country where freedom existed for the individual? Didn't they look around Russia or Poland and open their eyes to the ordinary folk and what they were going through? Did they believe that escaping from Hitler's Germany into Stalin's Russia was going to be a better life?"
It doesn't seem strange to me. If you read history, in the Thirties, with the world in a depression, people were looking for hope, and Communism seemed to offer that hope. That's why there were so many communists in this country as well as Germany. Don't forget, people didn't have access to russia to see what was going on there.
Germany, in response to the terrible economics, elected Fascist Hitler instead of going communism. The idealistic people who were attracted to communism must have felt delighted after the war with a chance to get what they thought they wanted. Many of these became officials, and of course couldn't admit that they were wrong. (perhaps didn't see that they were, since they had nothing to compare it to but Hitler's germany).
-
"Can you believe this? It was win/win for both sides".
Yes, I can (especially if you take the "pragmatic" foreign policy approach, and completely ignore the toll in human suffering). JFK must have known that the Communists would have to do something about the exodus from East Germany. And here Kruschev had done it in a way that didn't lead to war, left the Communists looking like the bad guys and the US (with a meaningless contribution of troops) like the good guys, didn't damage any of the West's interests, and made sure that all the toll would be bourn primarily by people on the East side, not by Western allies.
-
The Book Club Online is the oldest book club on the Internet, begun in 1996, open to everyone. We offer cordial discussions of one book a month, 24/7 and enjoy the company of readers from all over the world. everyone is welcome to join in.
Berlin 1961 by Frederick Kempe
(http://seniorlearn.org/bookclubs/berlin1961/berlin1961cvr.jpg) |
JOIN US in September as we renew our history, a more accurate history, of events that most of us remember very well. Historians are now able to not only do research into fresh new documents, but personal interviews have uncovered a wealth of information that is stunning to read. A young, untested, wealthy, U.S. president meets a Russian premier, son of a coal miner; Kennedy and Khrushchev, opposite in every way, yet holding the world in their hands. It's drama at the very best.
President Kennedy called the year a "string of disasters;" Kempe called it one of the worst of any modern presidency.
The book is divided into three parts: THE PLAYERS, THE GATHERING STORM AND THE SHOWDOWN.
Fascinating history, dramatic with new research into documents never before explored. |
The Players
(http://seniorlearn.org/bookclubs/berlin1961/khrushchev%20(159x230).jpg) (http://seniorlearn.org/bookclubs/berlin1961/ulbricht%20(151x230).jpg) (http://seniorlearn.org/bookclubs/berlin1961/kennedy%20(148x230).jpg) (http://seniorlearn.org/bookclubs/berlin1961/Adenauer%20(153x230).jpg)
Left to right: Krushchev - Ulbricht - Kennedy - Adenauer
Discussion Schedule
Some Topics for Consideration
Sept 23-30 Part III Pages 364-end
1. Discuss the unique location of the Steintucken enclave with respect to the border between East and West Germany. How did this enclave reinforce Clay’s theory that the Soviets would back down when confronted by a determined West opposition?
2. Discuss the September 23 rd weekend party at the Kennedy compound at Hyannis Port ocean retreat with guests that included Frank Sinatra, Peter Lawford and playboy Porfirio Rubirosa with his latest wife. With the party revelry in the background what important task was the President completing?
3. Discuss Khrushchev’s request for a second Kennedy/Khrushchev meeting that caused Kennedy cut short the Hyannis Port party to fly to New York Sunday Morning September 25th. With whom did he meet? Who had delivered the Khrushchev’ request for the meeting? What did President Kennedy say about the Berlin Issue in his speech to the United Nations September 25th, 1961?
4. Discuss the continuing pen pal letters between Khrushchev and President Kennedy. How were they delivered? What was Khrushchev’s motive for sending these letters, and Kennedy’s motive for answering them?
5. Discuss the 22nd Soviet Party Conference held in Moscow Oct 19, 1961. Who were the delegates? What were Khrushchev’s weaknesses as he faced the delegates? What were his strong points? What bombshell announcement did Khrushchev make to the conference?
6. Discuss the effect of the Soviet Party Conference on U.S. and allied countries Cold War Berlin policy. What were your thoughts on reading the material regarding a U.S. “First Strike Plan? Were you impressed by the apparent overall strength of the U.S. resulting in its Satellite and other intelligence information on the location of Soviet launch sites and air bases and the overall greater strength of U.S. air and missile launch capability? What concrete measures were ordered strengthening U.S. air and ground forces in Berlin?
7. Discuss the Showdown at Checkpoint Charley in late October 1961. What were some of the preliminary
events leading to the showdown? (The Lightner border crossing incident, General De Gaulle’ hawkish reluctance to negotiate with the Russians on any Allied rights of Access in Berlin, and the apparent friction between General Clay and President Kennedy on basic policy issues.) How was this October confrontation resolved?
8. Discuss the book and its author. What about it did you find particularly interesting and/or particularly uninteresting? Would you like to discuss other books about the Cold War? What other nonfiction subjects would you find interesting.
Related links:
Frederick Kempe's home page (http://fredkempe.com/);
New York Times Book Review (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/12/books/review/book-review-berlin-1961-by-frederick-kempe.html);
Discussion Leaders: Ella (egibbons28@columbus.rr.com) & Harold (hhullar5@yahoo.com)
-
Indeed, Joan, it seems like in the Europe of the thirties fascism and communism were the two big players, who seemed like they might have the solution to everyone's problems. Germany had tried fascism, with rather poor results, so it's not too surprising that some of them might then go for communism, especially the ones who had always been on that side. Of course communism didn't work all that well either.
-
Regarding German Communists, there were certainly communist cells active in post WWI Germany as there were elsewhere in Europe and even in the United States. The preHitler German Governments were not particularly friendly with them but I don't think there was any real active persecution of them either. When Hitler took power that changed with Communists being just a bit behind the Jews on Hitler's liquidation schedule. It was during this period when many German Communists including Ulbricht took refuge in Russia. There they received training preparing them for a future active leadership rolls in the expected near future proletarian Revolution. So as WWII ended Ulbricht was quickly returned to Germany where within a few years he was made President of the East German Democratic (Communist) Government.
-
Obviously we did not promote democracy in Europe after WWII although we did execute the Marshall Plan well, didn't we? I have very little memory left in my head except what I read in books. I know I heard a commentator the other day say that we are promoting democracy in Iraq and Afghanistan and what I retorted is not fit to type in this space!!!
IN OUR BEST INTERESTS! We fight, we intervene, we sacrifice lives, we decimate our budget, and I do wonder at the end of all these wars in my lifetime, beginning with WWII, what we think we have gained and what was in our best interest!
True the wall was a compromise that both Kennedy and Krushchev agreed to; true it did solve an immediate problem which could have escaled into a nuclear war in Berllin and later in Cuba. Let us hope that all the nations of the world are able to compromise in the future and keep their nuclear weapons leashed.
My soap box for the morning.
Thanks, HAROLD, for that explanation of German communists. Like you I would have thought they would have been persecuted, but they found a way to escape to Russia and afterwards came back to the homeland to spread another evil.
I'm getting dates mixed up but the McCarthy era in America must have come sometime around that peiod and scarred many good Americans. I'll look it up.
-
"The historical period that came to be known as the McCarthy era began well before Joseph McCarthy's own involvement in it. Many factors contributed to McCarthyism, some of them extending back to the years of the First Red Scare (1917–20), inspired by Communism's emergence as a recognized political force. Thanks in part to its success in organizing labor unions and its early opposition to fascism, the Communist Party of the United States (CPUSA) increased its membership through the 1930s, reaching a peak of about 75,000 members in 1940–41.[5] While the United States was engaged in World War II and allied with the Soviet Union, the issue of anti-communism was largely muted. With the end of World War II, the Cold War began almost immediately, as the Soviet Union installed repressive Communist puppet régimes across Central and Eastern Europe". - Wikipedia
-
Leave the soap box out, Ella. There's lots of subject matter here that is open to debate and argument. Six posts, already, I have typed up and then cancelled. It just as well to be reminded of the Red Scares since the 1917 revolution. Some say the Cold War began then, or shortly thereafter when the Comintern was set up, with its objective the overthrow of capitalist, imperialistic governments. It had great appeal for idealists, and soon became a worldwide network of intelligence gathering and subversive activities. I could never understand how the Communists, directed from Moscow, could get so many Americans to cooperate and steal scientific and industrial secrets, and influence policy making at high levels. And don't forget the Cambridge spies, the best and the brightest.
What tension-filled days and nights in the summer of 61. What great comic relief in the efforts to reassure the West Berliners of U.S. commitment. Why me? Johnson was reluctant to go and get in harms way. And then went shopping for shoes and dinnerware. It sounds spiteful. Does this come from Kennedy camp memoirists? Why didn't the president give Johnson the big line: Ich bin ein Berliner. Did you know that envious citizens in Frankfurt and Hamburg asked for presidential visits?
-
McCarthy started his witch hunt in the early fifties. There was certainly hangovers of that intimidation continuing into the sixties w/people being very careful about what they were saying and doing, especially backing off from political activities and conversation. Yes, he was building on events and thinking from throughtout the 20th century and the Wall and the Cuban Crises were continuations of the communist/capitalist battles in the Cold War.
-
"It sounds spiteful."
Clearly Kempe doesn't like either Kennedy or Johnson, and he introduces little touches to make them look foolish. Johnson's shopping. With Kennedy, he has him greeting Kruschev with "his Boston bray" (i.e. sounding like a donkey), later "cacooned in his corset". There are others I can't remember offhand.
Anyone writing history will have their opinions and biasses. And there are certainly a lot of things he can (and does) legitimately criticize kennedy and Johnson for. But the kind of writing above is, to me, fundementally dishonest, and makes me distrust Kempe (along with his majic ability to know what people were thinking and feeling, mentioned above).
No historian is without bias. the best of them acknowledge this, and try their best to be evenhanded. But it is up to us, as readers, to be CRITICAL readers and notice these things. If this were a subject I was deeply interested in, I would read other historian's comments on this book, and other books on the same subject to get a picture of the times from several different points of view.
As it is, having only casual interest, this is probably all that we will read on the subject, and be left with the impression of Kennedy as a donkey and Johnson as more interested in shopping than foreign affairs.
-
I just read your comment, JOANK, and I think you may be right in your criticism. However, the facts are there, whether we believe he has "distorted" history or not. We must use our own judgment and, as you say, look into the history of this period from other perspectives.
Is he an historian? I'm not a judge. He has written three previous books which are listed on the cover of the book. He was a reporter and editor for the Wall Street Journal and as we often feel, reporters, journalists and the like, write more for entertainment - to catch the eye - than for accuracy.
Or is that cynical? Does anone agree or disagree?
I think, in some respects, he has caught the uncertainty of the first year of any president, the difficult decisions faced. Perhaps too well? I don't know.
We live in an age, I think, where news has become, for some, entertainment rather than cold hard facts. It is to fill all the empty hours of TV with meaningless jargon. And newsprint was guilty of that? Perhaps historians are?
I would love to have other opinions of the book.
-
News from the Web:
In thinking of JoanK's remarks, I went to Google and typed in "critique of Berlin 1961 book" (a lot of reviews there) and if you go to the second row - second from the right - you will find our discussion!
-
I did the Google, and was impressed by the numerous customer reviews. All of them enthusiastic about the book. Not the final word on the subject, but a huge contribution in its study.
One review, by a military person, found an error on page one. The T-72 tanks the author places at Checkpoint Charlie in 1961 did not go into production before 1970.
I can point out another. In the segment beginning on page 277, datelined Moscow, June 21, 1961, we read:
'To add a theatrical touch, Khrushchev wore his wartime lieutenant general's uniform, replete with a hero's decoration, at the military celebration for the twentieth anniversary of Hitler's defeat.'
Wasn't June 21, 1941 Stalin's Day of Infamy, when Hitler invaded Russia? I guess I cut the author a lot slack when he guesses at what his characters are thinking. It adds a little spice to his tale. Just like I guess at what you guys are thinking. Or guessing.
-
Ella: I tried it, but couldn't6 figure out what you meant by "second row -- second from right"
-
QUICK, JOANK, these change rapidly.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&biw=1280&bih=775&tbm=isch&sa=1&q=critique+of+berlin+1961+book&oq=critique+of+berlin+1961+book&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&gs_sm=e&gs_upl=5491l21356l0l21980l46l34l0l20l20l3l234l2041l4.5.4l14l0
second row here, now is on the extreme right - click on that book cover
-
Jonathan is right in the International grasp of the Comintern. From the 1920 there had been a series of party Congresses with delegates from most all countries including western Europe Asia, and the Americas including the United States. Next week we will discuss the 22nd congress held in Moscow the week of Oct 17th 1961 in which Khrushchev made 2, 6 hours speeches before some 5000 international delegates. Labor activist Elizabeth Gurley Flynn was there representing the United States. I think Jonathan's mention of the Cold War having it's beginning in in 1917 has support from.the post 1917 history.
But lets wait until next week before we prob deeper in this event.
-
Wow, such a lot of reviews. I read haolf a dozen of the reviews. None of them agree with the points I made. They focus on whether they agree with Kempe's criticism of kennedy or not. Those who mention the research call the book "well researched" citing how many resources he lists in the endnotes.
To me, the question of whether we agree with Kempe's criticism of Kennedy is a separate one, one I think we ought to discuss. And Kempe certainly did do a lot of research: I'm guessing he used pretty much all of the resources available. My question is whether he used these resources honestly or not.
I'm not questioning his criticisms of Kennedy, and I don't think we need all the background he provides us to argue intelligently on that point. I'm questioning two things:
First: I question his use of "cheap tricks" to make especially Kennedy, later Johnson, look foolish. This is propeganda, not history.
Second: I question whether he is using his sources honestly whether these sources really provide him backup for his claim to know, in the beginning, what the participants were thinking and feeling. Every time I questioned such a statement "How could he know that?" and checked the endnotes, I found either no note at all, or a reference to another book with no information on what the other book said.
I'm very sensative to this, because of earlier experiences. In graduate school, I had to read many many books, and became familiar with what I used to call "The Snow Job". A scholor who had read a gazillion sources, and cited them all, but vaguely, as Kempe does so you couldn't tell what was actually in the sources. Based on this, made a lot of statements which were never questioned. I called it a snow job because all those citations fluttered down like snow and obscured the fact that he hadn't really backed up what he said.
A prominant example of this is Wilson, the biologist. He published a book called "Sociobiology". In the last chapter, he tried to apply the lessons of biology to humans. He made a lot of statements that had important implications for how we view human possibilities, especially in the area of racial differences. he didn't back them up, but instead cited other sources.
Someone took the trouble to follow up hose sources, read what they said, and publish an article citing both Wilson's statement and the source he based it on. It became clear that none of Wilson's statements had any foundation except in the expressed opinion of someone else.
This has made me very "itchy" when I see someone using their research in the way that Kempe does. It doesn't necessarily mean that he is being dishonesat, but it does raise that suspicion.
-
Sorry about the rant. Hope you skipped it if you aren't interested.
Having said all that, let's get down to it. Could kennedy have done more? Either before the wall, or after? Could we have just knocked the wall down as someone said?
Or is it time to move on to the next section?
-
I liked your 'rant', Joan. Well stated and argued. Good points. Picturesque: 'Cheap tricks.' 'Snow job.' Dishonesty, of sorts. It reminded me of what General Scowcroft said in his Foreword about the author's style: a combination of 'the storytelling skills of a journalist, the analytical skills of the political scientist, and the historian's use of diclassified documents.' That's a lot of skills to work with, and accounts for the amazing result.
'Could we have just knocked the wall down?'
I'm tempted to say yes. Now that we have General Clay back in Berlin. Had he been there in August the wall might not have gone up. On the way in, with VP Johnson, Clay tells Johnson that he had 'converted' President Truman into defying the Soviets in 1948. For him nothing has changed. The only way to deal with the Soviets was (is) to stand up to them. (384)
Kempe gets it right in emphasizing how different it was for President Kennedy, who had to take into account that the other guy now also had the bomb.
-
I liked your "rant," also, JOANK. Actually, I would say it's an honorable thing to do, to state your opinion. Shows passion, shows knowledge, critical skills, enthusiasm. Propaganda, huh! I would love to hear Kempe's defense of your statements.
In hindsight, JONATHAN, it's easy to say we could have knocked the wall down. Did we know how far Krushchev would go in his threats. I think we found out in the missile crisis in Cuban waters later, but at the time?
It is time to move on to our last section. I'll put the questions and the page numbers in the heading now.
It's been such a great discussion, have enjoyed it so much, let's continue with the book, much to think about.
-
I had the same reaction that Joan had--that Kempe sometimes says things he can't really know, especially about other people's thoughts. He has read just about everything ever written on his subject, is really steeped in it, and probably has a pretty good feel for it. He may really feel he knows these things, but I mistrust it. It does make for good storytelling, though. Do we have to choose between vividness and accuracy?
-
I also don't care for Kempe's tricks to make Kennedy and Johnson look foolish--incidents like Johnson's shoes and haggling to get a free set of china, sometimes just a carefully chosen word, or the tone of what he says. This is what George Orwell calls "evidence of malice". It reminds me of a trick the German newsmagazine Der Spiegel used to play (may still play for all I know, but I haven't seen a copy for decades). You could always tell whether they approved of a news figure or not by how flattering or un- the pictures they printed were. They managed to dig up some incredibly unflattering pictures of their enemies.
-
To me, the question of whether we agree with Kempe's criticism of Kennedy is a separate one, one I think we ought to discuss.
Absolutely, though probably after we've finished the book. I'm currently just up to page 399, and so far, although Kempe doesn't approve of JFK, he is making me feel that JFK did a pretty good job of taking the best course available in a very difficult situation.
In spite of all this quibbling, I'm really enjoying the book. It certainly gives a very detailed picture of all that was going on.
Off to read the last 100 pages. See you later.
-
Me. too.
I feel that we could have knocked the wall down, and I don't think K would have started a war. But he would have had to do something: the problem of the refugees had to be dealt with. And the next thing he did might have been worse.
What do others think?
-
Regarding JoanK’s comment that JFK could have knocked the Wall down and Khrushchev would not have started a war. But there would have been a high probability that that would have cause Khrushchev to be replaced by someone who would start a war over it. As it turned out it was the Wall that contained the storm for some 29 years before it came down because changed political goals made it unnecessary.
Maybe I’m over simplifying it but I am now seeing the wall as an asset for both East and West as it averted a showdown the likely result of which would have been war.
-
Regarding the Author’s research and writing style, I think he provided much complicated detail. Early in the reading I thought maybe too much detail. Later I think I have come around to conclude this was necessary for the readers understanding of the subject events. Also regarding the quality of his research I can’t remember a single event covered in the book that suggests inadequate research although most all conclusions could be subject to varying opinion related differences. Also I'm sure there are a few mistakes as have been mentioned. At least nothing stood out to me in my reading of the book that materially contradicted my recollection of the event.
Regarding his treatment of JFK, LBJ and other players on the world stage that involved in the plot I feel he successfully resisted any urge to make the JFK, Kennedy Family’s rather different lifestyle a prominent focus point in the book. Both JFK and LBJ had both their strong and weak points. In the book only once did this appear in detail in the book. This was the detail of the Weekend party and Hyannis Port Kennedy family compound where JFK went to finish a planned UN speech following week. The readers did get details of named Hollywood actors and International play boy types who were also guests that week end. Presumably JFK was not too distracted because his UN speech a few days later was considered a successful one.
I Know LBJ for all his long years of successful service in the Senate and Presidency had his flaws. The truthi is I would like to do a discussion of one of his biographies. It would be interesting, but the best biography is much too long for our casual reading sessions.
-
I think I can appreciate the valid criticisms regarding the author's style. The reader should have a critical eye for the shortcomings. I like George Orwell's phrase, 'evidence of malice.' There must be more of it now. It seems that way to me in the journalism and news reporting that I peruse. I wonder about some of the things that are reported in Kempe's book, but I don't see any malice in them. I think, however, he enjoys reporting some of the gossip he came across in his endless reading. And, of course, it puts a human face on everybody. Or is he taking a page out of Byron and comparing the partying in Camelot before Armegeddon with the ballroom in Brussels the night before Waterloo. Remember that? 'There was a sound of revelry by night...but hark! that heavy sound breaks in once more...it is...the cannon's opening roar.'
That's too farfetched. What's important for me is that Kempe has convinced me that the Berlin crisis was far more significant in many ways, than the Cuban missile crisis a year later. When Kennedy presented the evidence of missiles in Cuba, he was left with no choice. It was an easy, inevitable decision to make. An imperilled U.S. Berlin was more of an abstraction. The future of mankind. For Khrushchev, of course it was different. Berlin was HIS backyard.
-
Hola, everyone...
We've just returned from a fascinating, though exhausting trip to Spain - my first time for the paella and the Flamenco and newly learned Spanish language - language for tourists I must add.
Am so far behind in the reading of Berlin61...(no, didn't even try to lug the hefty hardcover in my limited baggage space :D) I'm over 100 pages behind you all - will try to catch up - but really can't speed read through this fascinating book.
Your comments on Kempe's portrayal of JFK and LBJ are particularly interesting to me at this time. The day after we returned from our trip abroad, we attended a very special celebration in DC marking the 50th anniversary of Kennedy's Peace Corps. 1961! There were over 11,000 volunteer applications in those first few months! My husband was not in that first group, but went to Africa in 1961. He was there during the Cuban Missile Crisis. He was there when the president was assassinated.
Are there any former Peace Corps volunteers here in this discussion? I wish you could have experienced the loyalty, the dedication to JFK's memory. The stories they told, the many cheers for him! They sang out loud and clear the word of songs such as "This Land is Your Land"....It was like a big hootenany! This group would not have tolerated Kempe's portrayal of the president as inexperienced or naive. He was - and still is, their inspiring leader.
I'm going to admit that I was not put off by Kempe's characterizations - references to thoughts and emotions. I thought it was fairly obvious what he was doing in those instances - making the narrative more readable, while not changing the facts.
I haven't come to the sections where he made JFK or Kennedy "look foolish" - though I will be on the watch for such examples as I attempt to catch up with all of you.
"What's important for me is that Kempe has convinced me that the Berlin crisis was far more significant in many ways, than the Cuban missile crisis a year later."
Jonathan
I do have some observations to make on your comment, Jonathan - will try to get make this afternoon. A really interesting, topical book, isn't it?
-
Welcome back, JOANP! BUENAS DIAS! That means something???? Good morning, possibly? I once knew a little Spanish, but you have to keep it up. Years ago on a trip to Costa Rica, that lovely little country, so undeveloped at the time, I knew more, but we laughed and laughed at some of our interpretations using our English/Spanish dictionary. A laugh at yourself helps.
THE PEACE CORP. The anniversary was on the news. JFK will long be remembered for its establishment, its success. Your husband, I am sure, has many memories, stories to tell. What an adventure for him. Is it on the Web? I'll go look, but......
A good Peace Corp documentary - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sgco9rR9wic&feature=related
We haven't dicussed Adenauer and West Berlin much at all have we? The Fourth person pictured above. He is facing, during this time, an election campaign with a younger man, Willy Brandt, the existing mayor of Berlin and he is also facing an angry crowd of West Berliners.
"For West Berliners, initial anger at the commnists was now accompanied by a growing fury over American betrayal. The talk around town was all about how the Americans had not sent a single platoon on August 13 to demonstrate solidarity, nor had they imposed a single sanction on the East Germans or Soviets to punish them for their action."
Adenauer knew the border closure would hurt him with voters. He knew they were questioning his age, his ability, but he hoped the facts that West Germany's thriving ecnomy and stability within the Western Alliance would weigh in his favor.
It was a nasty campaign and then, Willy Brandt, in an unprecedented move for a city mayor, wrote a letter to President Kennedy and the President fumed.
President Kennedy "considered the border closure a potentially positive turning point that could help lead to the end of the Berlin Crisis," but later, in response to Brandt, the President did send troop reinforcements.
"The communist move also allowed Kennedy to score public opinion points for the U.S. across the world. The communist enemy had been forced to build a barrier around its people to lock them in. Nothing could have been more damning. One couldn't buy a better argument in favor of the free world, even if the cost was the freedom of East Berliners, and, more broadly, Eastern Europeans."
That paragraph was a new way for me of looking at the wall. In a way, it was containment of the enemy, which we all heard so much of during those years!
-
The soviet spy attached to the Russian U.S. embassy was again use as a diplomatic courier during the October 1961 crisis. This time the Khrushchev letters were received in New York and Washington by the President's Press Secretary, Pierre Salinger. National Security Administrator, McGeorge Bundy has dubbed this informal exchange betwee the two Chiefs of State, "The Pen Pal Letters."
Bolshakov is an interesting character. In fact he filled only a middle level Embassy staff position, but this roll as a delivery man got him the following three paragraph Wikipedia blurb
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgi_Bolshakov
-
Our recent posts seem to have centered on the book, its author and the quality of its research and writing. But we seem to be ignoring the specific events of Chapter 16,17, and18. Lets hear what you have to say on events. How about Khrushchev's bombshell delivered at the 22nd Soviet Part Conference?
-
Yes, HAROLD, we'll unite our participants! Hahaha It's a lot of information to swallow! Let's take Chapter 16, what are your thoughts?
Kennedy's speech at the U.N. was great wasn't it? It helped establish Kennedy as a world leader. However Adenauer and West Berlin was not happy, he never once mentioned German unification.
JFK wanted to take the initiative, after Krushchev "victories" - space, Cuba, and the wall. However, buried in the speech was a "conciliatory message for Moscow on Berlin" - "We believe a peaceful agreement is possible which protects the freedom of West Berlin and Allied presence and acess." History would prove him right.
NOAH'S ARK WAS CONTINUING ITS CRUISE (Krushchev in a letter to Kennedy 9/61)
Could JFK have taken another course? Would there have been another way to satisfy Krushchev and Ulbricht and yet kept the peace. Should he have attempted to unite both Berlins with force?
-
OK Ella Chapter 16 opened with Kennedy appointing Clay his personal representative in Berlin. In effect this meant that he was the American Military Commander in Berlin. Clay's theory was that if the west really stood up to Russian demands or actual aggressive acts, Russia would back away. In Chapter 16 Clay soon had the opportunity to test this theory with the so called Steinstucken Enclave. Somehow this West German Enclave had no actual entrance to the rest of West Berlin. Clay supplied it by helicopter and even rescued East Berlin escapees who took refuge there. Clay took the fact that the Russians stood back allowing his supply and rescue operations to continue as evidence his theory was a good one. I don't think his boss, President Kennedy bought this theory, at least not for all of his negotiations with Russia.
Chapter16 also covers the Party at Hyannis Port at the Kennedy beach compound. The movie star guests and Papa Joseph Kennedy seem to having a gook time while the President was writing his coming UN speach
-
The most frightening part of the book was the US planning for nuclear war. So calculating and so idiotic. I remember a story of when we first acquired nuclear missiles and the military was discussing how many we would need. At first they thought 10 would be enough. But then who would manufacture just 10 so they decided on 100. Now it is in the thousands. Why?
I remember vividly the Cuban Missile Crisis. I was working for the Air Force Space Systems Command Meteorological Office in Los Angles at the time and living in Beverly Hills. That day when everyone believed we were going to war I went grocery shopping. I saw a cart full of cans of peas. I reached for a can and a man came up to me and shouted “those are mine!” I was stunned that someone wanted to hoard an entire shopping cart of peas and told him that I was glad I was not his neighbor as apparently he would not have shared. The shelves were nearly empty. The next day at work the Captain in our office said he and his wife had also stocked up on supplies.
I don’t remember being afraid as I truly didn’t think that two countries would be that stupid.
-
KIDSAL! Happy to see you are still following along. It does seem idiotic to stockpile so many nuclear weapons when we all saw the damage two could do in Japan. I read recently (but forget) an article about how many nations have nuclear weapon capability. Once tested they are never used militarily. The Middle East situation is frightening at the moment and many of those nations have the nuclear missiles, but it would take a powerful incentive for any of them to use one, don't you think? Nevertheless, for a couple of years back in the late 50's, 60's we were fearful of the Russians and what they would do. The Cold War.
HAROLD, as to Clay, I thought he was a grandstander, a bumbling sort of fool. General Clarke had to reprimand him and order the troops to take no further orders from him, he should have been sent home. And I skipped over the Kennedy party in Hyannisport. It had no relevance, as I could see, but I found it interesting that the President was at the Carlyle in New York and summoned Salinger for a conference at 1 a.m. Apparently, when the president calls, one hops to it. And then we read that the subject of Laos and North Vietnam is coming into the situation.
But JFK's speech was a great one - "Mankind must put an end to war or war will put an end to mankind."
Well, Vietnam was a long war, the Persian Gulf was a short war and now the Middle East Wars have continued far too long, what, 11 years or so? We have not learned how to put an end to war.
-
What did you think of the "pen pal letters" HAROLD? Had you ever heard of them before?
-
Ella, you've picked up a wrong impression of General Clay. He was a soldiers' soldier. He was tough, smart, and very capable. He had plenty of experience dealing with the Soviets, and I feel certain that he had earned their respect. He had, quoting from Wikipedia: ' a reputation for bringing order and operational efficiency out of chaos.'
And again from the same source:
'Clay lies buried in West Point Cemetery. At his grave site is a stone plate from the citizens of Berlin that says: "Wir danken dem Bewahrer unserer Freiheit" (We thank the Preserver of our Freedom).'
He was absolutely the right man to send back to Berlin to take charge. To reassure the West Berliners. His actions weren't a display of bravado, but true grit. Great leadership.
-
In the 1950’s I was a SSgt in the Air Force at McChord AFB, Washington. It was a training base for pilots prior to being sent to Korea. My job was as a flight dispatcher. One day the Russians entered Canadian airspace and we received orders to go to Plan ???. Suddenly the Base Commander and a group of officers were in the lounge of the flight dispatch area. The Base Commander kept yelling “Who has the Plan – where is it?” One of the officers replied that it was in the Base Commander’s safe. I had to leave the area to laugh. Would think you would remember at least the first two or three things that were required – maybe arm the planes, launch the planes?? Of course they would have to cross Canada before reaching us!! Will never forget that day!! Luckily the Russians turned and went home. So much for the Cold War.
-
I'm enjoying these informative posts so much - but all the while, I am so aware of my own ignorance of the history that I lived through! I'm reading Kempe's book as if it's a mystery. Did you know anything about the conflicts in Berlin at the time?
I'm having a difficult time considering Khrushchev as a man desiring peaceful coexistence. In my memory, he was a menace, a threat, a man who had the power and the inclination to set off nuclear disaster, just to prove his position in the world.
I agree that General Clay was a brilliant pick to send to Berlin. Kennedy has appointed him to impress his "hawkish electorate" - to keep his high approval ratings at home. And yet he narrows General Clay's role in Berlin. What did he expect Clay to do once in Berlin? I've just read through Chapter 16 - and have no idea what will happen to General Clay - his "most dangerous enemies" are in Washington? Does this mean his Commander in Chief? Has he not communicated clearly what he wants him to do? Or does Clay not take him seriously? It seems that many (most?) of the elder statesmen have no regard for or confidence in their new president.
Dean Acheson writes to Truman of of the "asinine Cuban adventure," calling the direction of government surprisingly weak" adding that morale in the State Department was at rock bottom - "brains are no substitute for judgement."
I'm having a difficult time with Kennedy's lack of judgement - on two fronts. Obviously the women - described by the White House security staff as a great threat to national security as well as the President's life! They were certain something would happen to the president at one of these soirees - hopefully not on their watch! No background checks, no searches. I would hate to be Dave Power's family, reading this book, hearing their grandpa described as the president's "chief procurer of women." Kempe goes so far as to label them as "prostitutes." I knew that the Hollywood set enjoyed these parties...but more then that - sends shivers up and down my spine. Maybe they just looked like prostitutes...
But even worse - The Kennedys seemed not to trust own people - prefer to have Bobby Kennedy meet directly with the Russian spy, Bolshakov - in long undocumented conversations with the man who reports directly with Khrushchev. Moscow is said to be astonished that a member of US Government is meeting secretly their man. The information procured by Bolshakov was not confidential, but shared with many. Moscow was even sending money to keep the meeting secret from US press (us) and FBI.
I knew that spies were plentiful at the time - but didn't know that the president was dealing directly with them!
Do you agree with Acheson that Kennedy's brains were no substute for judgement?
Does the book make you question Kennedy's judgement? Or do you feel that Kempe is being unfair in his assessment?
-
Ella asked, "What did you think of the "pen pal letters" HAROLD? Had you ever heard of them before? " I had never heard before this reading of this informal communication between the two "K's", but I was not much surprised upon reading it. There were surely other historical instances of informal communications between heads of state. I think the principal point that impressed me about this one were the messengers in the first round in the spring of 1962. For the Soviets it was the Russian Washington embassy Intelligence Attache, and for the U.S. initially it was Robert Kennedy the Attorney General. This was definitively not included in the AG"S job description. As might be expected. Khrushchev got more information about KFK's plans than JFK learned about Khrushchev's. Later exchanges for the U.S. were handled by high level White House staff people and seemed to have worked better. In any case the situation seemed to call for a quick informal means of communications and through the fall of 1962 they seemed to have worked.
Later as I remember it there was continually available a telephone line from the office of the president in the White House and the Soviet Premier in the Kremlin in Moscow. This line was given a catchie name by the press that don't come to my mind today. Does anybody remember.
-
"Does the book make you question Kennedy's judgement? Or do you feel that Kempe is being unfair in his assessment?"
Kempe is definitely biased, but that doesn't necessarily mean he's wrong. It's really hard for me to tell what I would have done in the situation that K was in.
Sitting here, safe, it's hard to remember the atmosphere of those times. Those of us (like me, doing top secret work) constantly faced with the reality of the nuclear threat lived in this strange "the end of the world is coming" state. It became, not "if" but "when". Some of the scientists where I worked were among those who advised the President that, since whoever started nuclear war would win, we should be the ones to start it. Kruschev was probably getting thesame advice.
Interesting that within a year or so, all the major players in this drama would be gone: JFK dead, the rest out of office.
-
Don't forget to read the first page of the acknowledgements after the end of the book. If he had put this in a forward, I would have read the whole book differently. So Kempe's was family was among those torn apart by the Berlin Wall, and he really blames Kennedy and hates (?not too strong a word?) him for it.
I can understand and respect that. Presumably, this was the impetus that lead him to all that research. I can now understand his bias, and "read around" it. But he should have stated it up front.
-
The Book Club Online is the oldest book club on the Internet, begun in 1996, open to everyone. We offer cordial discussions of one book a month, 24/7 and enjoy the company of readers from all over the world. everyone is welcome to join in.
Berlin 1961 by Frederick Kempe
(http://seniorlearn.org/bookclubs/berlin1961/berlin1961cvr.jpg) |
JOIN US in September as we renew our history, a more accurate history, of events that most of us remember very well. Historians are now able to not only do research into fresh new documents, but personal interviews have uncovered a wealth of information that is stunning to read. A young, untested, wealthy, U.S. president meets a Russian premier, son of a coal miner; Kennedy and Khrushchev, opposite in every way, yet holding the world in their hands. It's drama at the very best.
President Kennedy called the year a "string of disasters;" Kempe called it one of the worst of any modern presidency.
The book is divided into three parts: THE PLAYERS, THE GATHERING STORM AND THE SHOWDOWN.
Fascinating history, dramatic with new research into documents never before explored. |
The Players
(http://seniorlearn.org/bookclubs/berlin1961/khrushchev%20(159x230).jpg) (http://seniorlearn.org/bookclubs/berlin1961/ulbricht%20(151x230).jpg) (http://seniorlearn.org/bookclubs/berlin1961/kennedy%20(148x230).jpg) (http://seniorlearn.org/bookclubs/berlin1961/Adenauer%20(153x230).jpg)
Left to right: Krushchev - Ulbricht - Kennedy - Adenauer
Discussion Schedule
Some Topics for Consideration
Sept 23-30 Part III Pages 364-end
1. Discuss the unique location of the Steintucken enclave with respect to the border between East and West Germany. How did this enclave reinforce Clay’s theory that the Soviets would back down when confronted by a determined West opposition?
2. Discuss the September 23 rd weekend party at the Kennedy compound at Hyannis Port ocean retreat with guests that included Frank Sinatra, Peter Lawford and playboy Porfirio Rubirosa with his latest wife. With the party revelry in the background what important task was the President completing?
3. Discuss Khrushchev’s request for a second Kennedy/Khrushchev meeting that caused Kennedy cut short the Hyannis Port party to fly to New York Sunday Morning September 25th. With whom did he meet? Who had delivered the Khrushchev’ request for the meeting? What did President Kennedy say about the Berlin Issue in his speech to the United Nations September 25th, 1961?
4. Discuss the continuing pen pal letters between Khrushchev and President Kennedy. How were they delivered? What was Khrushchev’s motive for sending these letters, and Kennedy’s motive for answering them?
5. Discuss the 22nd Soviet Party Conference held in Moscow Oct 19, 1961. Who were the delegates? What were Khrushchev’s weaknesses as he faced the delegates? What were his strong points? What bombshell announcement did Khrushchev make to the conference?
6. Discuss the effect of the Soviet Party Conference on U.S. and allied countries Cold War Berlin policy. What were your thoughts on reading the material regarding a U.S. “First Strike Plan? Were you impressed by the apparent overall strength of the U.S. resulting in its Satellite and other intelligence information on the location of Soviet launch sites and air bases and the overall greater strength of U.S. air and missile launch capability? What concrete measures were ordered strengthening U.S. air and ground forces in Berlin?
7. Discuss the Showdown at Checkpoint Charley in late October 1961. What were some of the preliminary
events leading to the showdown? (The Lightner border crossing incident, General De Gaulle’ hawkish reluctance to negotiate with the Russians on any Allied rights of Access in Berlin, and the apparent friction between General Clay and President Kennedy on basic policy issues.) How was this October confrontation resolved?
8. Discuss the book and its author. What about it did you find particularly interesting and/or particularly uninteresting? Would you like to discuss other books about the Cold War? What other nonfiction subjects would you find interesting.
Related links:
Frederick Kempe's home page (http://fredkempe.com/);
New York Times Book Review (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/12/books/review/book-review-berlin-1961-by-frederick-kempe.html);
Discussion Leaders: Ella (egibbons28@columbus.rr.com) & Harold (hhullar5@yahoo.com)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Harold:
Joan regarding Khrushchev's dedication to peaceful east/west coexistence I too I have my doubts. However he certainly was not above using the concept as a short term means of serving his governments best interest.
Kidisal I too was surprised at reading of the extent of the U.S. consideration of a "first strike" policy. Apparently there was those in the U.S. government who believed the U.S. was in a better position in the event of an atomic exchange and that the US could inflict near Knockout damage with a first strike. At the time the US. had both long Range missiles and a fleet of long range manned bombers. These planners might have been right on that but England, France and Germany would certainly have got there 50 each and the U. would have got at least a few.
I agree with Jonathan's assessment of General Clay. Kennedy appointed Clay his Personal Representative in Berlin that apparently meant he reported direct to the President rather than to the Defence Department. I think his handling of the Steintucken Enclave was necessary and appropriate. Generally Clay and JFK got along good but there was some friction in the Fall of 1962.
-
Perhaps, JONATHAN, I did get the wrong impresson of Clay; however his maneuvers reminded me so much of MacArthur - returning to the Phillipines and then later, taking charge in N. Korea, exceeding his orders. (see pgs. 417-18). Clay had to be reprimanded twice by his superior officer for his secret operations.
I certainly agree, JOANP - "In my memory, he (Krushchev) was a menace, a threat, a man who had the power and the inclination to set off nuclear disaster, just to prove his position in the world."
That's why it's fascinating to read history, we read the details of which we were ignorant at the time. Do you think American presidents or any leader of a country would be a student of history trying to apply those lessons learned to present day problems? We could hope so
HAROLD, the pen pal letters were of interest, certainly new interest, and would be enlightening to researchers/historians wouldn't they? I looked up the source for them - State Department, Office of the Historian, Foreign Relations.
There was an article in my paper a few days ago about Iran - our troubles there, scary! This from the AP - "Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad says he would welcome a hot line with the United States or any other way to head off conflict in the Persian Gulf.........the hot line, modeled on the old emergency-contact line between the United States and the Soviet Union would let a U.S.commander quickly call a senior Iranian military official for clarification of Iranian motives, or to complain."
JOANK, you may be right about Kempe. His parents were immigrants and he speaks German and in the acknowledgment this (not mentioning names) "It was my parents who instilled in me an indignation both toward those who imposed and those who tolerated the oppressive system that encased 17 million of their fellow Germans...." Thanks for your post and the information that about the scientists with whom you worked.
We are the generation who remembers it all, the fear and the uncertainty of the Cold War.
-
My posts have been few but I have been following the exchanges here, though mostly I have been reading the book - with some anxiety, I admit, knowing that I had to return the book within two (2) weeks. That is the norm for new books.
Therefore I could not in good conscience simply "sit" on the book, disregarding readers on the waiting list. Miraculously, or so it seemed seemed, I was given an unheard of extension of time into October and can now devote some of my reading time to posting.
Ella, if I may say, it can be illuminating to read reviews of books by professionals. I always do. In the present case I read the NYT review of June 10, 2011 by Jacob Heilbrunn, titled "Did JFK Lose Berlin?" It is a long, very interesting review, and the author answers it indirectly in one paragraph, which I quote:
"But did Kennedy really bungle matters in 1961 ? Far from appeasing the Communists, Kennedy was simply ratifying longstanding American policy. At the Yalta and Potsdam Conferences, the Russians, British and Americans arranged to dvide Germany into four zones of occupation. Had Eisenhower been willing to accelerate the pace of battle in April 1945, he might have been able to reach Berlin before the Red Army. But he had no interest in sacrificing American soldiers for a political objective. So Stalin, at an enormous cost of lives, liberated Berlin."
# 254 by Joan K. The points are well presented and valid, IMHO. Readers have a right to expect an author to present facts as objectively as possible, irrespective of his personal likes or dislikes of personages. In Chapter 5, for example, which deals with Adenauer and Ulbricht, and in which the author compares the two vastly different men, he is not consistent in citing the source of remarks a worried Ulbricht uttered, while tugging with his mustache.. How can the author know this little fact ?
I had wondered whether the author has a German background but not read the acknowledgements. We read that his mother was born in 1919 in Berlin and went with her family to America in 1930. So she was eight. The author's father was born in Saxony in 1909. We can assume that they met in this country and that the author was born here. It is to be expected that he heard, understood and retained German.
I wonder how the author pronounces his last name. In German words ending in an "e", the "e' is pronounced and heard, and would sound like Kempuh , as in "sole mio" or antedeluvium.
One last word for tonight : the Italians and the Germans were not the only Europeans to embrace Fascism an Zazism, there was also Sir Oswald Mosley in England. Diana Mitford, the most beautiful of the Mitford girls, left her husband and children for Mosley. Admirers of Hitler, they were married in Berlin in the office of propaganda minister Goebbels.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oswald_Mosley
More tomorrow.
-
Straude it is nice to have your post We understand your limited time with the book. Regarding the Nazi's in England they had their Moslley but he was never in power in the Government. To my knowledge he was not even in the Parliament. Also in the U.S. the German American Bund group was at times vocal though never really a significant political force .
-
TRAUDE: How nice to hear from you. We have read several reviews in this discussion, the Washington Post Review, and others on the Internet and, as you will notice, the NYTimes review is in the heading. I agree, it is most helpful to read reviews. Indeed the author's parents were immigrants and he speaks German well. While working for the Wall Street Journal in several capacities he served as Berlin's Bureau chief and editor and associate publisher of the Journal's Europe edition.
You may be interested in his latest book Father/Land: A Personal Search for the New Germany.
-
'So Stalin, at an enormous cost of lives, liberated Berlin.' NYT review
'It was my parents who instilled in me an indignation both toward those who imposed and those who tolerated the oppressive system that encased seventeen millions of their fellow Germans behind Berlin's concrete walls, barbed wire, watchtowers and armed guards.' Frederick Kempe
Such irony in the one statement, such indignation in the other. So nice to hear from you Traude. I'm sure you could tell us many things that would help us to understand the strong feelings on both sides.
Ella, I see where you're coming from regarding Clay and the MacArthur/Truman association, having just read that part of the book. Clay certainly had them worried in Washington.
-
Ella: most certainly the pen pal letters are preserved either in Washington archives and/or at the Kennedy Library. They are certainly available to scholars and the general public by internet access and probably at the archive site.
Regarding Presidential Libraries, in Texas we now have two and will soon have a third. The oldest and closest to me is the LBJ library at Austin on the University of Texas campus. I have use it on a number of occasions not related to the LBJ Presidency as they often have scholarly seminars on a variety of subjects. I remember meeting Representatives from the Lipan Apache Indian Tribe Reservation in Oklahoma who brought interesting information on the current Lipan generation. There have been others including one 15 or more years ago that Ginny asked me to attend. I remember it was a 2 day affair on a Friday and Saturday and I commuted from my home in Seguin, but for the life of me I don't remember the subject.
The Bush I Library is now open at Texas A & M university that is about 50 miles east of Austin. I've never visited this one. The Bush II Library will be in Dallas at Southern Methodist University. It is not yet open.
-
I'm so sorry, am not feeling well, flu or something. Went to the doctor yesterday, will be back ASAP. And such interesting chapters to be discussed. We just have 4 more days!
The end of Stalin, the huge new bomb! War??? Easier to talk about than to fight said JFK.
Back when I'm stronger
-
Did you as individual Americans on Oct 27, 1961 realize the gravity of the situation at Check Point Charlie? The Russians had just reinforced their Tank force by bring up reinforcements in the form of 20 additional. tanks. Clay took this as a sign of Russian caution since apparently the 20 additional Russian tanks brought their number to parity with the U.S. number. Clay knew he had no more U.S. tanks to bring in; he also knew the Russians had yet more in reserve and he did not. From my reading of the chapter, the fact that both commands seemed determined to display their awesome capability, yet so far as the commanders in the field by order from their respective highest command were to avoid firing the first shot. The danger was a nervous lieutenant at the ready with his right hand on the trigger firing the shot setting off a world War.
What were you doing that day? Were you aware of the gravity to the situation in Berlin? The truth is I don't really remember that day. I was probably at work
-
We are now approaching the conclusion of this discussion but a lots of loose ends deserve your comments including your thoughts onf Clay' handling of the situation just prior to the showdown day and in particular the growing fiction between Clay and Kennedy. And also the Aftermath chapter. Please EVERY BODY participate in these concluding few days.
-
Jonathan the fact that 17 million German people were enslaved behind the Iron Curtain was the result of the Yalta Conference agreement. FDR agreed to it, a fact generally considered poor judgment resulting from his poor health at the time. Churchill agree to it also. In his case he had the opportunity just a few years later when at a University at Fulton Missouri in the United States to made his "Iron Curtain" Speech telling the free world that the Cold War had begun.
-
Harold, I'm already looking for a good book on Yalta. Any suggestions? FDR's health must have affected his negotiations with Stalin. Everyone agrees he looked terrible. He came to Yalta with plans for a peaceful world. Stalin had no hopes for peace as long as capitalism and class held sway on earth. It was as hopeless to talk ideology as it later was for Kennedy and Khrushchev in Vienna. And there was the small matter of getting Stalin to help with the rest of the war in the East.
Was there a falling out between Roosevelt and Churchill in the end? Churchill was hoping to talk strategy with Roosevelt in Malta, before proceeding on to Yalta, but Roosevelt wasn't having it. Incapable? It was surprising that Churchill didn't attend Roosevelt's funeral, at the very least a splendid occasion to deliver a great eulogy. I found it touching that Gorbachev attended president Reagan's last rites.
I would have liked to be there at Checkpoint Charlie that night. What excitement. I'm also a fan of General Clay's. Didn't he scare the hell out of them. Even built a mock wall in one of Berlin's empty lots for his tanks to practice on.
-
Get well soon, Ella. Stay away from doctors. I came away with something myself the last time I went to see one.
-
Oh Ella - do take care of yourself! Rest...fluids. No substitutes!
Harold, I'm racing to catch up- should get to chapter 18 on "Checkpoint Charlie" this evening. There's nothing written on stone that says we need to finish up in four days - we can take another week if needed. Don't want to turn the light out without our Ella!
As you say, Harold, there are lots of loose ends that merit attention - and Traude is just now joining us again. I'm really interested to hear from you, Traude, how the German people regarded the US - both immediately following the war - Clay's amazing airlift of German citizens out Berlin for one - and now some 15 years later, risking nuclear war to protect Berlin - and West Germany. It is somewhat mind-boggling, isn't it? We had just concluded a world war - against Germany, with so much bloodshed, and now we are willing to risk more lives to protect them. I know the answer - the war was not against the German people - but rather Hitler's army. Still, it is an abrupt about-face and difficult to understand. I'd love to hear Traude's perspective. Had the Germans been led to believe that we were the enemy - a threat to them?
-
Even though I haven't yet read the chapter, I'm going to answer your question, Harold - "Did you as individual Americans on Oct 27, 1961 realize the gravity of the situation at Check Point Charlie?"
No! A resounding no! I got chills reading the four points in Chapter XVII that us to a nuclear disaster. Even though it was a little reassuring knowing that Kennedy wanted to keep the number of casualties to a minimum - under a million... Whoa~ a million lives, the minimum~ Plus there were no guarantees that once started, things wouldn't get out of control and escalate.
Harold, I'm wondering where I was - what I was thinking about in October, 1961. Boyfriends, maybe. I was single at the time. But I do know I wasn't following world events. I'd have remembered this. Did you realize the gravity of the situation? Or was this all kept secret from the press and the American people?
-
I got the book yesterday, so I'll try to read this last section first.
I was in college in 1961, a history/pol science major and i do remember a lot of talk (propagand, which is often true) about how the communists had to wall their people in to keep them there, that they had been leaving in droves.
I haven't read the previous section yet so i don't know how scary it is to read. I don't remember thinking there would be a war over it, but i think that was always in the back of my mind when these crises came up.
Re: the next world war - after WWII when there began to be talk that the Soviets were working on a hydrogen bomb, as the U.S. Was also, someone asked Einstein how he thought the next war would be fought. He said i can't tell you how it will be fought, but i can tell you
that the one after that will be fought with stones!
Jean
-
Thank you JoanP, we will continue into or even through next week.
Regarding my conscious concerns avout the the grave situation at the close of Oct. 1962 as I look back I have either erased the recollection from my memory or I was ignorant of the bleak prospects. Frankly I don't see how I could not have been aware of it because to orchestrate the crisis on Oct 30, 1961 the soviets actually tested the 50 Megaton hydrogen bomb at a Siberian test site. This test had been promised by Khrushchev at the close of the 22nd Soviet Congress two weeks earlier. For pictures on the test click the following
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LxD44HO8dNQ&feature=relmfu
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LOwEcLiK4cA&NR=1
I have a better recollection of the Cuban Missile crisis the following year. At the climax I took some vacation towed my boat to Corpus Christi. I ran it 40 miles south down the Intercoastal Canal fishing for Speckle trout and redfish. When the crisis was compromised the second day I returned to San Antonio About 35 miles from San Antonio I got a speeding ticket for exceeding the 55 MPH speed limit then in effect for towing trailers.
-
That was a great way to unwind, Harold...except for the added aggravation of the speeding ticket upon your return! ;)
My husband is looking forward to reading the book - when I'm done with it. He has a much better memory than I do...and does have a recollection of the stand-off at Checkpoint Charlie. Maybe it wasn't big news here - wasn't featured on all of the TV channels - as it would be today. It really didn't last too long - but there are references to Daniel Shorr's CBS radio program - and articles in the NY Times. I'm guessing that by the time it was reported, the tanks had pulled back and so there wasn't that much public reaction.
Certainly a dramatic picture, wasn't it? The 10 US tanks and the 10 Soviet tanks facing one another, poised for action. More important than the drama, I think, was the realization that the two "allies" are now officially hostile enemies.
"For the first time the forces of two wartime allies, now the world's biggest powers, had met in direct and hostile confrontation."
"Khrushchev had put nuclear strike forces on special alert status for the first time ever over a US-Soviet dispute."
Harold, the video of the test of Tsar Bomba brought tears to my eyes. The idea that so many people were put to work to create a bomb capable of taking the lives of so many! We've come a way from that, haven't we? Haven't we???
Anything could have happened that day - "who will blink and pull back - or who will shout and start a war?" You knew as you read it, that a war didn't start that day - but who blinked?
-
I've got a question regarding General Clay. Did Kennedy in fact send him to Berlin merely as a symbol to West Berliners, expecting him "to live in a vacuum" there? Really? Did Clay ever agree to that? What DID he agree to? How did he understand his role there?
-
Is history being revised? Is JFK being put on trial in this book? Or does the author with his (east) Berlin roots have an axe to grind? He certainly has made it interesting.
I'm intrigued by the role that Clay played in the crisis. Somebody had to rally the troops while the C-in-C considered his options. It's all not enough for the author. What might have happened, if.... He certainly sums it up in that last paragraph:
'What Kennedy could not undo was the Wall that had risen as he passively stood by, which for three decades and perhaps for all history would remain the iconic image of what unfree systems can impose when free leaders fail to resist.'
Still, the crisis marked the the high mark of Kennedy's presidency. In his own words after the adulation from the Berlin crowd:
'We'll never have another day like this as long as we live.'
-
So far as I'm concern the Wall was not an evil happening; on the contrary it was a fortuitous happening,a pragmatic way out. I am convinced that if the Russians had not discovered that they could seal the Berlin border with the Wall, either a War would have ensued or the West would have had to leave Berlin. Better the Wall than WW III. Granted the cost was another near 30 years of Communist slavery for the 17 million East Germans.
Kempe on p478 says that Kennedy was so unnerved by the crisis that he sent his brother, Robert Kennedy to solve the crisis with his regular Washington interlocutor, Georgi Blolshakov. This was on Oct 26th, the day before the crisis peaked with the tank confrontation on Oct 27th. Robert Kennedy told Blolshakov that the President would like them (Russia and the U.S.) to take their tanks out of there within 24 hours. Robert Kennedy would later maintain that this demonstrated that Bolshakov delivered effectively when it was a matter of grave importance. In any case on Oct 28th Khrushchev instructed Soviet Marshal Konev to withdraw soviet tanks first telling him that he was sure that the American tanks would withdraw within 20 minutes of the pullback. Kempe adds on p 480. Khrushchev “was speaking like a man who had just made a deal.” A few months later Clay was removed from Berlin. Future handling of Cold War problems would be by more conventional staff, the President but working through the State Department rather than more independently through the White House staff and Russia Embassy staff.
-
Just a note. Am better but weak. I've read all your posts, agree with most! And I agree, JONATHAN, Kempe was very harsh on President Kennedy. Wish we could ask him why?
JONATHAN, read a book on Yalta and report back to us. I know the four powers that set this plan into motion - that is, to punish Germany for its sins - succeeded, for the most part, to stabilize the country and set up a democratic government. Well, they were stymied by the Soviet Union.
Didn't they have an inkling this may happen? They certainly knew the history of Stalin and his cohorts, but if they suspected that the Soviets would not adhere to the agreement within their sections of Germany and Berlin, was there any provision made to enforce a representative government? Probably not.
It seems somewhat loose to me, this Yalta conference and the others but what would have been the alternative. When you have multiple allies fighting one country. That boggles the mind somewhat!!
We have one more day, unless people want to continue for awhile.
I enjoyed the book, the history.
A new book, sure to be a bestseller, is by Candice Millard, who wrote River of Doubt (a very good book) The book is about President James Garfield and here is a very short summary:
James A. Garfield was one of the most extraordinary men ever elected president. Born into abject poverty, he rose to become a wunderkind scholar, a Civil War hero, and a renowned and admired reformist congressman. Nominated for president against his will, he engaged in a fierce battle with the corrupt political establishment. But four months after his inauguration, a deranged office seeker tracked Garfield down and shot him in the back. But the shot didn't kill Garfield. The drama of what happened subsequently is a powerful story of a nation in turmoil.
-
So happy to see you here, Ella, even if weak. I was posting just now while you were. Will try to get back this afternoon to comment on your questions...
"Is history being revised? Is JFK being put on trial in this book? Or does the author with his (east) Berlin roots have an axe to grind?"
I'm not sure if history is being revised, Jonathan - so much as the interpretation of the events as they happened. I feel Kempe was sending mixed messages when he writes, "historians gave Kennedy more credit than he deserves"...citing new evidence that shows he did not envision the Wall would fall, or foresee a unified Germany or the Soviet Union collapse." He tells his close friends and associates, Powers and O'Connell, that Germany would never be unified. The wall and unification were never Kennedy's top priorities. Preventing a nuclear showdown was. I don't think we can fault him on that.
Consider the position he was in -
Either attack the Cuban missiles and risk retaliation - (do you think Khrushchev really meant to aim missiles at New York? Or is this a threat? I really don't think he wanted to do that. But who knew at the time.)
Or - the other option
- trade a Cuban missile pull out - for a US pull out in Berlin. Kennedy sees the choice - if Krushchev takes Berlin, then we'll take Cuba. Did Kennedy really think that his tough, firm, unwavering stance demanding a withdrawal of the missiles in Cuba - would actually work? Did Bobby come back from his meeting with Bolshakov with assurances that a deal could be worked out? What if the speech or the meeting with Bolshakov hadn't worked? Would the US have ceded Berlin?
I suppose by agreeing to keep hands off in East Berlin and the Wall was enough for Khruschev. And I suppose this is why Kempe is still bitter about the deal - (I don't have any doubt that the author has an axe to grind - regarding the three decades of hardship his extended family had to endure under Soviet rule.)
But in the end, Kempe does seem to soften in his assessment of Kennedy. - The speech in Berlin showed a new Kennedy speaking of the unification of Germany, of the German nation and the rest of Europe. From then on, Berlin was a place that would be defended - "from that point on, neither Kennedy nor any other US president could retreat in Berlin."
-
Just got a notice from American History TV (cspan3). They ate runnung a British documentary on the Berlin Airlift this weekend.
Saturday - 8:30am
Sun- 3:30pm
Mon-4:30am
Jean
-
Ella, So glad to see your post and hope you will get all your strength back very soon.
Thank you for alerting me to Kempe's Fatherland : A Personal Search for the New Germany.. Roger Cohen, the NYT reviewer, is mostly complimentary in his judgment of this book but wonders (as do I) what Kempe means by "the new Germany". Mr. Cohen feels Kempe is "obsessed'. The title of the review is "Guilt Trip". According to the reviewer, Kempe reveals in this book that there are Nazi skeletons in his father's German relatives, and he is sensitive of the reflection on himself. The book is a report of a trip Kempe took accompanied by a Jewish leader whom he did not tell about the skeletons. Forgive me but I find that irritating.
Berlin 1961 is valuable as historical reportage especially because here in this country we did not have full knowledge of the circumstances and how close to a nuclear confrontation we came. There are some repetitions of the same material about certain details, about Adenauer for example. And there are at least two references to the Bild Zeitung with quotes relevant to the situation. It surprised me that Kempe has consulted this particular paper as a source. Published inHamburg by the Axel Springer Verlag, it was called simply "Bild" (picture) at one time and has always been considered a scandal sheet (in my time some called it a "Revolver Blatt" (rag)"). I was incredulous when I read that organ is the most-read paper in Germany. But I checked and it is true. In fact, it has become the most-read paper in all of Europe despite its poor reputation.
I felt uncomfortable by the fact that Kempe makes no bones about his intense dislike for Kennedy. Perhaps the author objects to him on moral grounds ? In my humble opinion It is of no importance what an author thinks of the character of historical personages, or whether he approves of what they did or did not do at a crucial moment in history. Just the facts, Ma'm, just the facts, please. I am reminded of the insightful discussion we had here several years ago of Paris 1919 : Six Months that changed the World by Canadian historian Margaret MacMillan whose approach was markedly different from Kempe's. At no time that I recall did Ms. MacMillan inject her personal opinions into the narrative of Paris 1919.
It would be nice to continue for a few ays longer. To make up for my scant posting I could perhaps best contribute to this discussion by giving you a description of life in the East zone during the first trip my then fiance and I took in December 1947 and in subsequent visits. My mother died in 1961, just before Labor Day, and we scrambled to fly out of Washington as soon as we it could be arranged. We managed it, but solely thanks to a good friend who worked for Lufthansa. . I'm afraid my mind was numb to anything that happened in Berlin.
I promise to write more tomorrow.
-
YES, YES, STRAUDE!
We do want to hear more from you about your visits to the East Zone. Was it difficult to get passports? Could tourists go? Was your mother able to write and receive mail while in the East Zone?
On reading, one gets the idea that East Berlin was a closed society - a communist section of Germany. Much as that of the Soviet Union during that period.
And your description of the newspaper (picture, rag) or whatever; that, too, is interesting! Today, even, the paper continues? Kempe should know of this, right? This paper was a source for Kempe's reportage? There are many references in his notes in German, (or Russian?) which few of us could understand - just look at his Abbreviations on pg.508.
Just the facts, Ma'm, indeed! And he must have got most of them correct; otherwise there would have been negative reviews and I haven't read any.
It's amazing that we have you as a source who knew firsthand what was happening in Berlin and Germany.
Do write more when you can. We'll keep it open. And for any other people who would like to make comments.
-
Yes, Yes , of course Straude please do comment further concerning your trip to East Berlin. I think our personal reaction to events and personal experience situations described in the book are always appropriate.
Also this Discussion will not close today. JoanP the other day posted that it will be OK to keep it open into next week. I would like to end it by mid-week but we will require a few days more to properly close it. I'am, going to be rather heavily involved this weekend with work at the ITC and the Mission Espada but will look in here at least briefly on those days.
-
I'm going to miss an interesting part of the discussion, as well as the TV programming on the Berlin Airlift. My bags have been packed for a week, my car is gassed up, I have a small bundle to spend...America here I come.
I've enjoyed the book. The author has given us a good historical account of the crisis and kept us on our toes with his guilt and disappointments, but, reading between the lines, JFK comes out of it looking pretty good.
What an interesting family, those Kennedys. Just what was Bobby's role in all this? His 'negotiating' with Bolshakov seemed like little more than a sideshow. Naturally, he couldn't stay out of it, for fraternal and ambitious reasons. He was always a controlling type. Keener on action than Jack ever was. I've forgotten the page, but, out of the blue it seemed, in the middle of the crisis, Bobby laughingly told his brother that an aide had suggested he run against his brother in the next election.
Kempe certainly kept it interesting. Thanks everyone for the stimulating discussion. Nice to hear you're feeling better, Ella.
-
JoanP asked a good question, "Is history being revised? Is JFK being put on trial in this book? Or does the author with his (east) Berlin roots have an axe to grind?"
First I don't feel the author has any particular ax to grind in his writing of the book. Certainly the author's description of the decades of communist slavery experienced by the millions living in west Berlin was an integral part of the subject. For me I think the author handled it well.
Second I think the subject required that President Kennedy's handling of the situation be scrutinized by the Author. Kempe certainly did not shrink from this necessary requirement. As a result at times particularly initially (June 1961 at Vienna) JFK does not score well. Later as he matured he did better and the fact that a real shooting WW III was
avoided and that some 30 years later a united democratic Germany emerged seem adequate evidence that he deserves substantial credit for his part leading to the eventual happy ending.
Like Jonathan who has already comment on this point, Let's have comment from everyone on this issue.
-
Thanking Jonathan for your concluding comment on the book. Please have as safe and happy holiday.
-
Yalta to Berlin by W.R. Smyser
Click the following for information on the Yalata Conference from the above Book.
http://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/from-yalta-to-berlin-w-r-smyser/1003986573?ean=9780312233402&itm=12&usri=yalta
This includes a 6 page review of the half dozen big three meetings that concluded in the Yalta conference. I wish we had found this a month ago. But it is worth reading now.
Note By mistake I seem to have left this message by accident when I revised it to add additional material . The following message isw what I intended to post here . Please Ignore this and see the next message.
-
Yalta to Berlin by W.R. Smyser
Click the following for information on the Yalata Conference from the above Book.
This includes a 6 page review of the half dozen big three meetings that concluded in the Yalta conference. I wish we had found this a month ago. But it is worth reading now.
http://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/from-yalta-to-berlin-w-r-smyser/1003986573?ean=9780312233402&itm=12&usri=yalta
Click the Read More link near the end to read quite a bit of Yalta Conference details.
-
Here I am, as promised.
If I may, I'd like to begin with a link about Allied-occupied Germany After WW II, and I direct your attention especially to the map. The red block represents the Soviet zone of occupation, obviously the largest of the four zones of occupation, all identified with the respective rectangular flag. Inside the Soviet block the small dot is Berlin with its four sectors. I believe this map clearly shows the precarious, vulnerable location of the city of Berlin in the middle of miles of Soviet-occupied land. No wonder the Soviets dreamed of incorporating Berlin !
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allied-occupied_Germany
Long before the wall was erected in Berlin, the Soviets shut off all rail and motor traffic and access by building a fortified border with ever more sophisticated mine-fields, no-man's land sections, and watch towers to make crossing impossible in both directions. Railway and motor connections existed only from specific crossing points up within the border. Trains from the west stopped in the designated station, let out the passengers, who then had to wait for the east German train, at least in the beginning. That happened to us because, you see, the line had only one track left. The rails of the other track had been removed by the Soviets ...
Ella, I never visited Berlin; I was born in the Rhineland and we didn't have relatives or friends that far east in the country. We only visited in the East Zone proper, under normal conditions just a few hours from Frankfurt. Why did we goo there ? My mother was aghast.
She said it was dangerous. It was. I would rather not have gone but there was nothing to keep my fiance back because only a few weeks earlier had he finally heard through the International Red Cross that his family had been reunited in a small village not far from the city of Weimar (known from the 'Weimar Republic", famous because of the literary giants Goethe and Schiller. But we didn't go there on that first visit, we stayed in that village in a little abode that was more a shed than a house.
I'll be right back.
-
Continued
There was no tourism in 1947. There wasn't anything to be seen, whole sections of towns both in the west and the east had been bombed, and a large-'scale removal of mountains of rubble had not been started. People were hungry. Ration cards were still in use but had actually become useless because there were no foodstuffs, no clothing items, no shoes to be had. The Reichsmark no longer carried any value. But anything and everything was available to those who had cartons of American cigarettes. Some people received CARE packages from relatives or friends in America with real coffee and Crisco, which as highly prized.
In 1947 and all along later years, people who wanted to enter East Germany, the East Zone, needed an invitation. And then a visa. As soon as that was available, the traveler could travel. On arrival on the other side, the first trip was to the local police where the visa was put in our German passports. We also had to buy East German money, a specific sum for each day we intended to stay. Before returning to the west, we had to go to the police again and surrender any money we had not used - but it was just as well because it was not valid in the west.
Remembering those dark days of that first visit is extremely painful. In my mind's eye I still see the drab houses, the hopelessness in the faces of the women under their black kerchiefs. No, I could not let my mother know that we had arrived or when we would be back. She had no phone. I was flooded with relief as soon as we were back on the west German train.
In East Germany there was no democracy Thanks to Mr. Ulbricht, the populace was relentlessly bullied all these years with a harshness that even Stalin had not insisted on. The people had merely traded in one authoritarian regime for another, first the Nazis, then the Communists.
How could they be ready for democracy when reunification came ? They didn't even know what it was. And Ella, , in answer to an earlier question of yours: No, many west Germans were not exactly bowled over by reunification. But by now the standard of living is certainly higher for East Germans. They are free to travel wherever they want; under the Communist regime they could travel only to East bloc member nations.
To be continued, if you like
-
NO, STRAUDE, it is up to you if you want to continue. If it is painful to remember, don't!!!! Particularly typing it all in, but we do appreciate it so much.
You had the invitiation and the visa. And you had to register at the police station, what a system Seems almost as bad as facism and the Nazis. Here is a little quote from a site on the Internet about the currency problem:
"Another big problem were the two currencies in Germany and especially in Berlin. West German DM had been exchanged into East German DM at a rate of 1:4 (1 DM West = 4 DM Ost) in West Berlin.
People with West German DM could get goods very cheaply in the Eastern part of Berlin."
What a change the years have brought! Thank goodness for that. I just heard someone on BookTV talk about the Berln airlift and Tempelhof Airport, how dangerous it was to land the planes there. But the pilots were all volunteers and loved doing it, seeing the grateful people. And we saved a few from starvation and we had been bombing them just a year before.
We've read quite a bit about Ulbricht in the book and his cruelty. If you have the book you can read many instances of his demands on Krushchev and Ulbricht's fears of losing his power in East Germany.
Thanks again, Straude!
-
Very interesting Strude.
I remember reading that the Berlin Airlift also took people out of Berlin......if i remember correctly, the number was about 63,000. i wasn't aware that that was hsppening also.
Jean
-
Straude thank you for your posting on your 1947 experience entering East Germany. Any additional comment you may care to make will be welcome. But also if you care not to post more that is OK too. It is up to you.
-
I think we still have some concluding loose ends before closing from the Author’s concluding “Afterschock” chapter. More specifically :
Do you agree with JFK negative assessment of his own administrations record when he replied to Detroit News Journalist Ellie Abel’s request for a help in writing a book evaluating his ist term with “Why would anyone want to write a book about an administration that had nothing to show for itself but a string of disasters?”
Or do you agree with the author Frederic Kempe who wrote on p486, “Given the Cold War’s happy ending, it has been tempting for historians to give Kennedy more credit than he deserves” in avoiding war and the eventual reunification of Germany?
-
Ella and Harold
To continue with the rest.
The memory of that first visit in East Germany in 1947 is painful because of the surrounding personal circumstances of my husband's parents,
refugees from the Sudetenland, expelled by Czechoslovakia in 1944 within hours with only the clothes on their backs and what they could carry.
Ten million refugees fled westward from the advancing Russians, and there are countless such heart-breaking stories. But I did not want to narrate only this personal story but report instead on the general, overall picture, and make clear in particular that a whole large region was like a a prison, its border sealed, and Berlin an relatively small island in that red sea.
Between 1947 and 1954, when we left for America, my husband took a number of trips into the Soviet zone, mainly food, and fruit - the grandchildren had never seen bananas! We did not have a car and he used the train.
General Lucius Clay, the father of the Berlin airlift, was the military Governor of the American zone from 1947 - 1949. Doubtless he realized that the Reichsmark had become obsolete. In any event, in June of 1948 a currency reform was announced to take effect a week later. The Reichsmark was supplanted by the Deutsche Mark (also called D-Mark). Every German received 50 D-marks. It was the 26th of June 1948 , my wedding day, how could I ever forget ? My sister came from Stuttgart with her 50 D-marks. It was an auspicious beginning for West Germany and led to the "German economic miracle". In 2002, The D-Mark in turn was replaced the Euro (€).
I told my dear old friend from school about this discussion, and she emailed today. This is what she said in her e-mail :
"I too was in the DDR twice with the car. It was horrible ! Extensive controls at the border, endless waiting, endured in silence. We were afraid. We could stay only in specifically assigned hotels and had to pay an enormous sum ahead of time, in western currency One had to suffer the arrogance of the Volks-polizei (Volk policemn) and didn't dare open our mouth lest a wrong answer might land one in jail. Once safely back on West German soil, one breathed easier. I want to forget these dreadful times, and I also don't want to recall the Nazi era either. It was horrendous!"
She did not mention the isa and did not say when these visits took place. I believe it must have been in the mid-fifties. For my part, I am not sure forgetting is as easy as that. Certain things probably should not be forgotten, and some cannot be forgotten. In my case it would be the loss of our home in 1942 in the bombing of a suburb of Mannheim. However, that too is a separate, personal story and does not belong here.
I went to East Germany twice more, once with my husband in the early seventies, and again in 1977 with my children. My daughter was 28 and in graduate school in S.F., my son 15. By then the East German government had "refined" the m.o. of border-crossing with more rules. We were not allowed to carry any West German papers or magazines. The second track had been restored, but checking the papers of every passenger in every compartment took well over an hour, while East German soldiers with German shepherds patrolled on the platform.
We encountered one of those "arrogant" young policemen who peppered my daughter and son with loaded questions. (On the return trip to the West, the train stopped again for an even more thorough control and longer time. Eventually we heard in our carriage muffled voices and the loud wailing of a woman. We waited in anxious silence. When the policeman entered our compartment, his face was a mask. No one would have dared to say anything. He asked whether we were carrying any East German money. Knowing it is forbidden, we had left it with the family. And the first trip was again to the Police Station to sign in, show the visa, pay the price per head, per day, ahead. To sign out with the police was the same.
The lot of the family had visibly improved - they had moved into town and were granted an apartment when one became available at long last. The food supply was not steady. Daily shopping was necessary because only whatever was available would be on the dining table. There were always long queues and shoppers would automatically line up without knowing just what was being offered, or whether there was anything left when one's turn came. My eldest niece became a nurse and was grateful for the uniforms I sent her. Since it was hard to convert the metric measures into inches, the jeans for the boys were not always the right fit, and the same was true for shoes. But conditions have improved beyond anyoe's expectations when the border opened at last.
My friend reminded me that tomorrow, on October 3ed, Germany celebrates The Day of Unity, a national holiday. She added
"So far, a full, complete union has not yet been accomplished." I would like nothing better than visit just once more to see for myself, but alas - my traveling days are over.
-
STRAUDE! Thank you again for the post and the memories. I am so interested in your story, but, particularly, this statement made by your friend puzzles me:
So far, a full, complete union has not yet been accomplished."
Why?
I would think most matters would be settled now. Am also wondering if Germany's neighbors, France, Belgium, etc., still look anxiously at what is happening in Germany or are they content to believe that all is well and no further problems may arise? After two wars with Germany, I would still suspect. Probably with little reason to, however.
Do you think the EU is working?
It's great to have you here. Thanks again so very much!
-
The Book Club Online is the oldest book club on the Internet, begun in 1996, open to everyone. We offer cordial discussions of one book a month, 24/7 and enjoy the company of readers from all over the world. everyone is welcome to join in.
Berlin 1961 by Frederick Kempe
(http://seniorlearn.org/bookclubs/berlin1961/berlin1961cvr.jpg) |
JOIN US in September as we renew our history, a more accurate history, of events that most of us remember very well. Historians are now able to not only do research into fresh new documents, but personal interviews have uncovered a wealth of information that is stunning to read. A young, untested, wealthy, U.S. president meets a Russian premier, son of a coal miner; Kennedy and Khrushchev, opposite in every way, yet holding the world in their hands. It's drama at the very best.
President Kennedy called the year a "string of disasters;" Kempe called it one of the worst of any modern presidency.
The book is divided into three parts: THE PLAYERS, THE GATHERING STORM AND THE SHOWDOWN.
Fascinating history, dramatic with new research into documents never before explored. |
The Players
(http://seniorlearn.org/bookclubs/berlin1961/khrushchev%20(159x230).jpg) (http://seniorlearn.org/bookclubs/berlin1961/ulbricht%20(151x230).jpg) (http://seniorlearn.org/bookclubs/berlin1961/kennedy%20(148x230).jpg) (http://seniorlearn.org/bookclubs/berlin1961/Adenauer%20(153x230).jpg)
Left to right: Krushchev - Ulbricht - Kennedy - Adenauer
Harold:
Straudy again your first hand reporting on East Germany behind the Iron Curtain are most interesting. Thank you for sharing them with us. Your last paragraph stands out when you wrote, "So far, a full, complete union has not yet been accomplished."
I knew that just like in the U.S some areas lag behind others so far as standard of living is concern. Yet regarding governance they enjoy the same standing as all others sectors. In the matter of the unification of East Germany into a single German state the initial difference was staggering, and I would not be surprised if the East has not yet caught up with the west. But, this is because of resource differences and other geographic differences, it may never catch up in this way. Yet surely there is political parity with educational opportunities and free movement to the west for better employment opportunity. This is certainly the pattern in the U.S. and even in Western Europe.
-
HAROLD; To finish up and to answer your last question, I think it is hard for most Americans to judge JFK and his presidency with any degree of positive/negative charges. Knowing as we do that the Kennedy's eldest son died in WWII and the next two oldest were assassinated in this country how could we be anything but sympathetic!
The conclusion of the war and the conferences of the allies are most interesting and I'm sure are studied by historians with, we hope, lessons to be learned for the future.
However, as we have said there will probably never be another war such as that one without another nuclear weapon being used (we set the example for all time) and God help us all!
-
Ella and Harold - thanks so much for leading this discussion, your guidance of us thru it and your questions and additional information. Even tho i didn't get the book in time to read w/ you, i still enjoyed it.
Jean
-
I would like to conclude this discussion with my thoughts regarding the JFK presidency that are substantially different from our authors rather negative view of his administration. Though he like most of his successors seemed quite unprepared for the detailed routines of the office, he seemed to mature rapidly and by the end of the summer I think he was doing as well as could be expected in doggedly hanging on to the Western Power's Berlin enclave. He did this despite Khrushchev's equally dogged determination to make all of Berlin communist. This policy certainly risked a shooting or even atomic war with Russia, but as time has shown, it was not an undo risk as some might have judged. And also as history has shown in the end Berlin and all of East Germany became part of a united democratic Germany. Yes, even the Soviet Union devolved into a new Russia and a half dozen other democratic (?) capitalist republics. I might stop short of judging JFK among our greatest Presidents, but with the exception of maybe 2 or 3 of his successors I think he scores quite high over most of these.
-
Ella I think this has been a fine discussion. I thank all of you who have participated. Particularly I thank Ella for finding this book and recognizing it as a discussion prospect. Please, everybody stayed tuned to our general discussion boards for new discussion prospects. I agree with comments here that a good book on the Yalta Conference would make a good one. Also maybe there are other Cold War discussion prospects. maybe a biography of LBj? No the best one is 3 volume and much too long. But how about Ronald Reagan?
If Ella concurs I think it is time to move this one to the archives.
-
Let me add my thanks before it's too late. I had to drop out before the end for personal reasons, but continued to read the posts, and will finish the last 2 chapters when I can.
Ella and Harold, this was a stellar discussion. You chose an interesting book on a topic I care about. The ideas brought up were stimulating , and we exchanged some good thoughts. Traude, thank you for your valuable input, which added a lot.
A really good experience.
-
Ella and Harold,
My friend Dorothee, to whom I conveyed your question "why?", Ella, has not written back, but I would like, and feel duty-bound, to respond.
As I mentioned earlier, when unification came, suddenly and without advance fanfare, many Germans both in the West and in the East were surprised. And the fact is that many prosperous West Germans were not very welcoming to the idea or the reality, skeptical if or how their impecunious, down-trodden brothers and sisters in the East would adjust.
Like the Nazi leaders had done, the Communists ruled East Germany with an iron fist, keeping people in line through fear and intimidation. The state was a hot bed of espionage. Members of the intelligentsia were well advised to join the one remaining party, the Communists, and everybody was always under surveillance; informants were feared because on their say-so alone people could be thrown in jail. It is not too much to say that East and West were two different worlds. There was no democracy in the East and the name GDR = German Democratic Republic was ludicrous.
Of course, after four decades of oppression and suppression, it could not be expected that the German reunification would be realized over night. But Germans are known for their thoroughness, and the Government has achieved a great deal in the last decade. Berlin is once again the capital and no longer in exile in Bonn (which was always a sleepy university town).
Ella, one last answer : Germany is considered the strongest nation in the European Union and no longer feared as a war monger. Not all nations have adopted the Euro - Britain still has the pound and Switzerland the Swiss franc. The union has weak members, notably Greece, we hear, Spain and possibly Portugal. It is gratifying that the relationship between France an Germany, equal partners in the EU, has been normalized after decades of rivalry and fighting between two arch-enemies over the Rhineland and Alsace-Lorraine.
Incidentally, after World War I, and as stipulated in the Treaty of Versailles, the Rhineland was occupied by French and Moroccan troops continuously until 1931. I remember the Moroccans patrolling the streets in their blue uniform and a red fez.
Thank you, Ella and Harold, and all the participants for another enlightening discussion.
Traude
-
We're back from grandson's birthday celebration - just in time to thank eveyone for this enlightening discussion. When we started, I had a number of preconceived notions and convictions concerning JFK's presidency. Kempe confirmed some of them, but listening to the comments here, I feel my understanding of the man and his approach to the office of President, has evolved. And Traude, thank you so much for sharing personal memories of Berlin and now, the unification of Germany...the author stopped short of taking us there.
Thank you so much, Ella and Harold - and all who contributed to this discussion! A remarkable experience, it was.
-
Traude, you have really made the ending of our of our discussion with your first hand account of life in the East German Russian administered zone and its final conclusion 1989 - 1991 with the fall of the Wall and the unification with the West in an united German truly democratic republic. I think we can say that not only the Germans but the entire World was surprised how almost automatically the process progressed to conclusion, not just Germany but also eastern Europe and Russia itself in less than 3 short years.