Author Topic: Berlin 1961 by Frederick Kempe ~ September Book Club Online (Read 57282 times)

Ella Gibbons · « **Reply #40 on:** August 21, 2011, 05:15:15 PM »

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 9-16 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;
New York Times Book Review;

Discussion Leaders: Ella & Harold

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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.

The Berlin Wall built in 1961 - 96 mi. ll.8 feet in height

A monument to the wall today

Ella Gibbons · « **Reply #41 on:** August 21, 2011, 05:35:01 PM »

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.

Ella Gibbons · « **Reply #42 on:** August 21, 2011, 05:47:44 PM »

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."

PatH · « **Reply #43 on:** August 22, 2011, 01:27:13 PM »

My piece is a little bigger than a walnut, almost white, and uniform in color.

JoanK · « **Reply #44 on:** August 22, 2011, 03:40:21 PM »

Mine is grey rubble.

kiwilady · « **Reply #45 on:** August 22, 2011, 09:36:55 PM »

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

HaroldArnold · « **Reply #46 on:** August 23, 2011, 10:02:25 AM »

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.

Ella Gibbons · « **Reply #47 on:** August 23, 2011, 06:57:09 PM »

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.

HaroldArnold · « **Reply #48 on:** August 24, 2011, 12:28:10 PM »

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.

PatH · « **Reply #49 on:** August 25, 2011, 03:44:16 PM »

Fragment of Berlin Wall

PatH · « **Reply #50 on:** August 25, 2011, 03:50:05 PM »

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.

Ella Gibbons · « **Reply #51 on:** August 26, 2011, 10:32:38 AM »

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."

Ella Gibbons · « **Reply #52 on:** August 26, 2011, 10:34:13 AM »

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.

HaroldArnold · « **Reply #53 on:** August 26, 2011, 06:29:26 PM »

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. .

Ella Gibbons · « **Reply #54 on:** August 27, 2011, 05:14:16 PM »

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.

Ella Gibbons · « **Reply #55 on:** August 29, 2011, 09:48:30 AM »

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!

JoanK · « **Reply #56 on:** August 29, 2011, 02:55:40 PM »

Just started reading. Hope I can finish in time.

I was trying to remember what I was doing on New years 1961.

Ella Gibbons · « **Reply #57 on:** August 30, 2011, 09:57:37 AM »

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.

Jonathan · « **Reply #58 on:** August 30, 2011, 11:07:08 AM »

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.

Ella Gibbons · « **Reply #59 on:** August 31, 2011, 01:22:01 PM »

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?

?

Ella Gibbons · « **Reply #60 on:** September 01, 2011, 08:06:51 AM »

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?

Jonathan · « **Reply #61 on:** September 01, 2011, 10:23:10 AM »

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.

JoanP · « **Reply #62 on:** September 01, 2011, 10:27:48 AM »

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.

Ella Gibbons · « **Reply #63 on:** September 01, 2011, 12:29:47 PM »

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?

JoanK · « **Reply #64 on:** September 01, 2011, 02:54:42 PM »

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

HaroldArnold · « **Reply #65 on:** September 01, 2011, 07:29:55 PM »

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.

HaroldArnold · « **Reply #66 on:** September 01, 2011, 07:31:51 PM »

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

HaroldArnold · « **Reply #67 on:** September 01, 2011, 07:34:10 PM »

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.

HaroldArnold · « **Reply #68 on:** September 01, 2011, 07:45:32 PM »

The Folloing is an Interesting Cold War Timeline:

http://www.history-timelines.org.uk/events-timelines/03-cold-war-timeline.htm

PatH · « **Reply #69 on:** September 01, 2011, 08:18:49 PM »

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.

kiwilady · « **Reply #70 on:** September 01, 2011, 10:13:23 PM »

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

kidsal · « **Reply #71 on:** September 02, 2011, 03:15:21 AM »

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.

Ella Gibbons · « **Reply #72 on:** September 02, 2011, 08:01:13 AM »

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.

Ella Gibbons · « **Reply #73 on:** September 02, 2011, 08:15:29 AM »

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.

Ella Gibbons · « **Reply #74 on:** September 02, 2011, 08:30:12 AM »

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

JoanP · « **Reply #75 on:** September 02, 2011, 09:53:40 AM »

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...

HaroldArnold · « **Reply #76 on:** September 02, 2011, 11:12:23 AM »

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.

Jonathan · « **Reply #77 on:** September 02, 2011, 11:40:17 AM »

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.

Jonathan · « **Reply #78 on:** September 02, 2011, 11:57:29 AM »

For a hundred years the U.S. has been part of European affairs. Has it been helpful?

HaroldArnold · « **Reply #79 on:** September 02, 2011, 12:01:16 PM »

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

News:

Author Topic: Berlin 1961 by Frederick Kempe ~ September Book Club Online (Read 57282 times)