Berlin 1961 by Frederick Kempe ~ September Book Club Online

[Ella Gibbons]

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

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

     

 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;
 New York Times Book Review;

Discussion Leaders:   Ella  & Harold

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.  

[Ella Gibbons]

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?

[HaroldArnold]

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.)

[JoanK]

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.

[JoanK]

I'm way behind in  the reading, but will try to catch up in the next few days.

[HaroldArnold]

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.

[HaroldArnold]

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? 

[Jonathan]

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.

[Jonathan]

And of course Herr Ulbricht.

[PatH]

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.

[PatH]

Harold: great presidents.  Polk?  Really?  Guess I'd better read a bit about him.

[HaroldArnold]

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

[HaroldArnold]

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.

[Ella Gibbons]

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.

[HaroldArnold]

>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  

[mabel1015j]

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. 

[HaroldArnold]

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?

[Ella Gibbons]

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-

[JoanK]

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?

[kidsal]

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?

[Ella Gibbons]

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.

[Jonathan]

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.

[Ella Gibbons]

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

[HaroldArnold]

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.
    

[PatH]

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.

[PatH]

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

[JoanK]

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?

[JoanK]

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!

[HaroldArnold]

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.

[HaroldArnold]

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 

[Jonathan]

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.

[Ella Gibbons]

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." 

[JoanK]

"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.

[JoanK]

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)

[mabel1015j]

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.

[Ella Gibbons]

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?

[Jonathan]

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.

[HaroldArnold]

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.

[JoanK]

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).

[JoanK]

"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.