Berlin 1961 by Frederick Kempe ~ September Book Club Online

[PatH]

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

 

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;
  New York Times Book Review;

Discussion Leaders:  Ella  & Harold

[PatH]

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.

[HaroldArnold]

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.  

[Ella Gibbons]

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.

[Ella Gibbons]

"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

[Jonathan]

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?

[mabel1015j]

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.

[JoanK]

"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.

[Ella Gibbons]

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. 

[Ella Gibbons]

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!  

[Jonathan]

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.

[JoanK]

Ella: I tried it, but couldn't6 figure out what you meant by "second row -- second from right"

[Ella Gibbons]

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

[HaroldArnold]

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.

 

[JoanK]

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.

[JoanK]

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?

[Jonathan]

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.

[Ella Gibbons]

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.    

[PatH]

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?

[PatH]

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.

[PatH]

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.

[JoanK]

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?

[HaroldArnold]

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.   

[HaroldArnold]

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.

[Jonathan]

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.

[JoanP]

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 ) 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?

[Ella Gibbons]

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!

[HaroldArnold]

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

[HaroldArnold]

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?

[Ella Gibbons]

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?  

[HaroldArnold]

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

[kidsal]

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.

[Ella Gibbons]

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.

[Ella Gibbons]

What did you think of the "pen pal letters" HAROLD?  Had you ever heard of them before? 

[Jonathan]

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.

[kidsal]

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.

[JoanP]

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?

[HaroldArnold]

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.

[JoanK]

"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.

[JoanK]

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.