Berlin 1961 by Frederick Kempe ~ September Book Club Online

[HaroldArnold]

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

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

There was an interesting article in yesterday’s San Antonio Express telling of a September 13th ABC program commemorating the Fiftieth anniversary of the Kennedy Administration.  It will be a 2 hour special with Diane Sawyer and Caroline Kennedy.  Included also will be a 50 year old previously never aired recording of a TV interview with Jackie Kennedy made shortly after she left the Whitehouse after JFK’s death.   This interview has never before been seen and heard.  I think this interview may be of interest to us as we discuss Part 2 considering Jackie Kennedy’s role in the Vienna conference in June 1961 and also later events covered in our book.  .

[mabel1015j]

I don't have the book yet, am waiting on inter-library loan. So i may be duplicating something you have already read.

If i'm remembering my learning correctly, the civil war in Greece brought on Truman's first major decisions about "containment" of the Soviets in the Cold War, "the domino theory" and the Truman Doctrine. Here is a good link.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/war/greek.htm

Jean

[Ella Gibbons]

JEAN, I was hoping you would be here soon and also hoping you get your book.  It's good reading!

GREAT POSTS!  

But such a complicated situation.  Krushchev, fascinating fellow, he is given credit for the "post-Stalin thaw" as some historians call it, but all of the characters (in the heading above just the communists are smiling, did you notice) are in this story and each has his part to play.  

I think it was JOANP who mentioned Eisenhower - Eisenhower, who thought Kennedy was  "Little Boy Blue,"  a young whippersnapper, who needed some instruction on how to handle the Soviet Union, while JFK thought Ike was "intellectually ponderous and inadquately informed about issues."

Was it the age difference, disrespect, what was it with young JFK?  (I had to look up the references for some of this, never having read anything like it)

What did all of you think of Kempe's portrayal of Kennedy? 

Do you have any ideas of which one of the four Kempe might have favored in this first section?  Or none at all, sorta of a on the scale of  l-10 question?  I know it's early to ask such a question, but............

[JoanK]

I seem to have lost a long post I wrote about "great presidents". I think there must be a great challange to the president in order for us to KNOW whether he is a great president. But it doesn't have to be war, as FDR in peacetime shows. The early presidents had, perhaps, the greatest challange of all, as they were determining what kind of country this new "democracy" would be. Washington deserves te label for his determination that no president should serve longer than 8 years. Some people mowadays thinks that any nation that holds elections is a democracy. No, we don't know whether we have a democracy until we see a peaceful transfer of power. (The first president to be voted out of office was Adams, and he did step down peacably, but it was a near thing).

[JoanK]

Does anyone else have the same trouble with "Berlin 1961" that I do? It is full of statements that so-and-so- "Thought such and such, really wanted such and such, didn't like such and such. HOW DOES HE KNOW what these people were thinking.

The book is lavishly footnoted, but most of the notes are to other books or articles, so you still don't know the aurthors basis for what he says. I only saw one direct quote from the person referred to to substantiate Kempe's claims to know what was going on inside these peoples heads.

This kind of writing is fundamentally dishonest!!! He may have very good reasons for everything he says, but as long as he soesn't share his reasons with us, I intend to take everything in this book with a large grain of salt. The book has the weakness of historical fiction: he can portray these people any way he wants, and we don't know how accurate thaat portrayal is. I'm going to read it as if it is fiction.

[kiwilady]

I don't think we truly live in  Democracies. If we did there would be National Referendums on very important issues- for instance whether we go to war.

[JoanP]

Do you have any ideas of which one of the four Kempe might have favored in this first section?

Not an easy question, Ella!  Easier to say which one of the PLAYERS he did not favor.  So far,  I'd have to say Kennedy.  What we read of Kennedy does not really surprise me - as to how unprepared he was to step into the role of a player in the fragile alliance in Berlin. Even his advisors were not in agreement!   He seemed to learn nothing from Eisenhower, not that he spent much time seeking his advice.  The Cuban handling was an indication of just how naive he was.  It will be interesting to watch and see what he decides to do in the next section. 
I had to feel something for Khrushchev - he is in a difficult position trying to convince his own Russians that he was succeeding with the West.  He walks a very fine line.

JoanK, can you give a specific example of what makes you classify Berlin61 as historical fiction? Or dishonest?  I didn't have that problem with the book - it seems so well researched, I can't believe Kempe would make anything up to make the book more readable.

[Ella Gibbons]

JoanK, can you give a specific example of what makes you classify Berlin61 as historical fiction? Or dishonest?  I didn't have that problem with the book - it seems so well researched, - JOANP

Let us know, JoanK!  I've had to look up some quotes that seemed to me unbelievable, but Kempe has his notes by page numbers.

Is it right for historians to elaborate on specific subjects that they researched?  Would we read a book that simply stated facts?  

Is this book predicated on the author's opinions?

Let's have a show of hands???

KENNEDY. Most of us know about his health problems.  He was young, charismatic, awesome!  Should we be concerned with the health of presidential candidates?  

[Ella Gibbons]

"Have you read the Inaugural Address?"  Ambassor Thompson asked Khrushchev, speaking of the new president.  "Not only had he read the speech, Khrushchev said, but he would ask Soviet newspapers to print the entire text the following day."

This was unprecedented.  I am surprised to read of Khrushchev's reactions all through these chapters.  Some I knew, such as the release of the two American airmen, but the events that Kempe relates leading to the WALL are very interesting to me. 

HAROLD stated that the Yalta Conference was the beginning of the Cold War, true -  JONATHAN blamed Khrushchev for it all.   I think it is more complicated as we shall see when we discuss Ulbricht and the tension created as the flood of Communists leaving East Berlin for the west. 

The two Berlins and their leaders are, for me, rather new information and absolutely fascinating history.  I remember reading or hearing about Konrad Ademauer, but nothing whatever about Ulbricht and his "relentless focus" on the Stalinist version of socialism.

[Jonathan]

Ella: 'Is this book predicated on the author's opinions?'

Goodness, no. I think Kempe has a pretty good handle on his materials and keeps his account factual, or shall we say believable. Of course, JoanK makes a good point by asking: 'How does he know what these people were thinking?' I've wondered about it myself, several times. Could it be an occupational hazard for the historian? Especially so in this case where the art of diplomacy comes into play. All these men were constantly wondering what is the other guy really thinking. Public statements, private thoughts, etc.

In that context I wonder why Kennedy didn't leave it to his ambassador to reach an agreement with Khrushchev, Thompson had such good rapport with K. They understood each other's thinking.

[HaroldArnold]

Regarding Kempe’s book I don’t think it is unduly opinionated by the Author’s opinions.  In fact I think it is a rather complete analysis of the historical facts that is the subject of the writing with appropriate conclusions written by the author that seem logical based on the actual facts.  I did not note any Author injected conclusions not called for by the historical facts.
There were times maybe when I thought it was too detailed but the fact is the complete actual book is a mere 579 pages including Acknowledgments, Notes, Bibliography, and Index.  This is certainly not excessive for a subject as comprehensive as this one.+

The Author in compiling his writing relied much on fact inputs of several former or then incumbents U.S. or allied foreign officials such as West German Chancellor  Konrad Adenauer, French President Charles de Gaulle, former Secretary of state Dean Acheson, and U.S. ambassador to Russia,  Llewellyn Thompson, and others.   The inputs of these individuals differed sometimes widely.  How Kennedy processed this information to formulate his understanding of policies were sometimes for me confusing.   Perhaps for Kennedy they were confusing also.

[HaroldArnold]

Kiwi lady, you are right of course we do not live in a true democracy, we live in representative Democracies.   I remember as a kid in elementary school a teacher calling this fact to our attention.  She cited Switzerland as the world’s only true democracy.  I sort of doubt that it was anywhere near that pure, then or now.  Historical one could not imagine bring all a Nation’s population together to vote the popular choice of each and every issue.  

Today I suppose a nationwide digital voting system is a possibility.  Even so I hesitate to think of the weird results of such a system with the entire population voting for or against every issue now studied, debated, and propose by our respective Parliaments, Congresses, and other Legislative assemblies.   Let’s be satisfied with what we have.  Though imperfect, it somehow seems to work.

[HaroldArnold]

Ella asked in Message 82 above,” What did all of you think of Kempe's portrayal of Kennedy?”  I think he treated them fairly.    I am trying to think back but I don’t  think Kempe’s  view of them was radically different from my own.  I found it hard to make my decision but ended up voting for JFK, probably for the wrong reason.

I think both JFK and his brother Robert were certainly smart very high iq individuals and they were certainly well educated.  I think our author even noted that Eisenhower was amazed how quickly JFK digested the information conveyed to him at pre inaugural briefings.   None the less as we will see next week the first year of his administration included some negatives including the Bay of Pigs invasion and a bad opening at the Vienna Conference.   

Another negative for some has been the rich playboy image particularly of JFK in the Whitehouse that came from the news media years after his administration ended.   In this respect Robert Kennedy as a long married man and father appeared better, but the younger Ted Kennedy’s  problem with the accidental drowning  of a female campaign worker ruined the last chance of another Kennedy in residence at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue 

Also Ella asked in Message 87 above, “KENNEDY. Most of us know about his health problems.  He was young, charismatic, awesome!  Should we be concerned with the health of presidential candidates?” 
The presidents health should always be a matter of concern for all Americans.  JFK certainly carried his health problems.  Next week in Part 2 we will note his condition at Vienna, and years later we discovered he had more serious life threatening problems.  He was not the only American President with such problems with perhaps the most serious incident being the severe illness of Woodrow Wilson who wife seems to have managed his administration during the last months of his term.  Later this problem has been partially corrected by new rules for managing an extended Presidential incapacity by the Vice President. 

[kidsal]

It was Jack Kennedy who was being groomed by his father to run for president.  I believe the same for Jeb Bush until he lost the Florida election.  But John Kennedy did have a schooling in foreign affairs from his father.  John Kennedy certainly wasn't lacking in advice -- Eisenhower, Sec of Defense, State, Ambassadors, and a zillion others.  Health -- as long there is no mental health problem I imagine by the time anyone runs for president they have a couple of health problems.  Pres Reagan's problems were covered up I believe.  A man I worked with was to receive an award from him.  Said when he returned to the office (this was in last year of Reagan's term) that he thought the president didn't seem to sure what was going on - in sort of a haze.  This was before any word came out on his condition.

[HaroldArnold]

Kidsal as I understand it, it was JFK’s elder brother Joseph P. Kennedy that was the fathers first in line for the Persidency but he was killed in action during WW II.  JFK, the 2nd son survived to run and achieve that goal
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kennedy_family#Third_generation

This shows JFK as third generation Boston Irish American.  His grandfather and father had been active in the Boston Democrat Party and his father had become a multi millionaire through business dealings.  It seems the father’s great ambition was to see a son become President and from an early age he groomed his sons for this goal.  The elder son Joseph Kennedy was Killed in action during WW II after which the mantel fell to John F. Kennedy the 2nd son.   Other younger sons who later entertained Presidential ambitions were Robert F. Kennedy and Edward M. Kennedy (Known as Ted or Teddy)..

[HaroldArnold]

According to my list when we began this discussion we had 11 committed participants (counting Ella and myself).  Today is the 4th day of active discussion and I count 9 of us who have checked in with comments.  Thank all of you, keep your comments coming.
 
And the two of you who have not yet comment, please come on in.  We are missing your input.  Also anyone else out there with questions or their own comments on the subject are welcome to join in.

[mabel1015j]

I was in college during the Kennedy/Nixon campaign and as i look back on it now i think Kennedy's appearance and personality drew the people of that age to him. I don't recall much talk about his experience, or lack of it. My Republican friends were questioning some of that but those of us who favored Kennedy were looking at someone who seemed more like us - even tho i now know his life had been nothing like anyone i knew.

 He was young, as compared to Eisenhower. He seemed friendlier and more fun, less rigid and conservative then Nixon. We empathized with him bcs people seemed to be discriminating against him for being Catholic. He seemed to have new ideas, again, i think that was more a factor of his personality than really knowing it was true. The only thing i knew about his health was that he had a bad back bcs of his WWII experiences - heroic experiences. Knowing now what i know about his health, if he had been running against anyone other than Nixon, i might
not have voted for him - that's from a "sensible" old age perspective.

My mother, a strong Calvinist Presbyterian, voted for the Republican, perhaps for the only time in her life, strictly from a prejudice against the Catholic Church.

Based on his playboy life, his father's financial influence, his minimal experience, i don't know with the investigative reporting of today that he could get elected today. Which i think might be a shame based on how he grew in the job and the atmosphere he brought to the country.

So in conclusion, young people probably voted for him for many wrong reasons and i'm not sure he could get elected today, but i think he did a good job regardless of his previous history and his health problems. Maybe we should keep in mind that being president of the U.S. is an on-the-job-training-only situation and many rise to meet the standard once they get there - and age significantly doing it.

Jean   

[JoanP]

Jean, it makes you wonder how our system works, doesn't it  -  We vote for a person we know little about to take the highest position in the land - to make decisions that mean life and death for so many.   We rely on the press and  campaign rhetoric to learn about the person we are going to vote for.  Charisma has a lot to do with it too - should it?  Can it be helped?
Would JFK be elected today?  If the press was enamoured with him, the way it was back then, then possibly.  I don't think we realize how much influence the press has on our perception of the candidate.

And as you say,  the presidential office is on-the-job training.  No one can be prepared for the presidency.  Maybe the Vice President?  Can you just imagine those post-election meetings when the incoming president learns of the urgent decisions he is expected to make immediately?  I liked reading about Harry Truman's first days.. but won't go into that now.

Harold spoke about the lengthy tapes Jackie Onassis made following the assassination with the orders that they not be made public until 50 years had gone by.  I am really interested in what she had to say - though cognisant of the fact that her main goal was to preserve her husbands image.  Does your newspaper carry the Parade magazine? There's a large spread on an interview with Caroline Kennedy S. on those tapes.

[PatH]

In today's climate, it would be much harder for a presidential candidate to hide a serious medical condition.  Same with personal life.  JFKs philandering was much more copious than Clinton's, but it wasn't really known until later.  And they were both good presidents, in spite of this despicable side to their personal lives.

We should definitely be concerned about any health issues that would seriously impact a candidate's ability to do his job, or make it likely he would die in office.  But as Kidsal points out, most candidates would be likely to have some issues, and presidents have done good jobs while ill.

[Ella Gibbons]

The good and the bad of it.  JOANP asked if we realize how much the press influences the elective process; on the other hand PatH states how difficult it would be today for a presidential candidate to hide both health problems and swinging lifestyle.

Free press, the Constitution protects it so, we can either ignore it, read more of it than we do, or listen to the  TV numerous entertaining news stations.  I don't read news online; of course, someday that may be my only choice!

JEAN, I agree that JFK's youth appealed to many after the Eisenhower administration.  Without getting into politics are we saying that only the young folk vote?

THANKS TO ALL OF YOU FOR THE POSTS.  SO INTERESTING TO COME IN AND READ THEM!

[Ella Gibbons]

I think Kempe emphasizes Krushchev's role in this drama more than the others - just my personal opinion - and rightly so.  The confrontation between the two superpowers was bound to happen after that Yalta Conference which was disastrous in Germany and kept millions prisoners for some 30 years behind the Wall.  One wonders, after the fact, and I remembering being amazed at the time, how well Germany recovered from taking in all the East Berlin and East German refugees after the Wall came down.

However, I think we can begin to see in these first chapters that Krushchev is interested in the West, signified by this sentence on page 26:  "A few days after Thanksgiving, during one of the most extraordinary meetings ever between a Soviet leader and an American politican" took place at Cap David, the American "gulag" as the Soviet leader called it.   That's amusing.  It was Eishenhouser who named it Camp David after his grandson.  Years ago we visited the Gettyburg farm where Eisenhower retired.  What a career he had!

But wasn't it the first time the two leaders had ever met in America?  I think it was JONATHAN who asked if America had ever regretted our involvment in European affairs (WWI?).  Yes, Yes.  However, the world would have been a different place if we had not.  

[mabel1015j]

 Ella asked "without getting into politics are we saying that only the young folk vote?"

No, of course not, but young people voted in large numbers for Kennedy and i was speaking of the people i was around at the time.

[mabel1015j]

 Ella asked "without getting into politics are we saying that only the young folk vote?"

No, of course not, but young people voted in large numbers for Kennedy and i was speaking of the people i was around at the time.

[Jonathan]

It's interesting to read about presidents and health issues. Wilson in his last year. Roosevelt at Yalta. Reagan towards the end. One other president from day one. Kennedy, we read, could never understand, with his bright, shining image, how he managed just barely to win the office. Of course he had Khrushchev in his corner, for what that was worth. Did Khrushchev ever wonder if he might have reached an accord with Nixon. Nixon took his mission to China and look what happened. Have you all read about Adenauer taming Khrushchev by shaking his fist at him? I can't understand why Kennedy didn't stop off in Bonn on his way to Vienna, to get a few tips from Adenauer. Kennedy may have felt he would be lectured on his morals. Make a note of the feelings of a heavily-burdened eighty-five-year old on his birthday.

What a challenge for a new president. The Berlin crisis of 1961. As Harold has pointed out, Kempe takes 579 pages to give us a complete picture. The context in which it all happened. By way of contrast I would like to quote a short paragraph from Donald Rumsfeld's new book: KNOWN AND UNKNOWN.

For all John Kennedy's personal charm, however, little had been accomplished in his all too short presidency. On the foreign policy front, the administration's record was thin. There were his talks with the Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev in Vienna, where Khrushchev came away with the impression that Kennedy was young and inexperienced. There was the failed Bay of Pigs invasion of Cuba that added to the impression of American weakness. Then followed the construction of the Berlin wall and the Cuban Missile Crisis, both of which seemed to have been at least in part a result of an emboldened Khrushchev deciding to test America's new young leader.'

Didn't that all come with a lot of wearying detail for the young president? 

[JoanP]

Jonathan, add to the wearing detail of the office, the young president's now-known busy personal schedule -

"JFKs philandering was much more copious than Clinton's, but it wasn't really known until later." PatH

As I read Kempe's book, I'm struck with the fact that Kennedy's "philandering" was well known by so many - at the time.  Leaders, Ella mentions Adenauer for one, were concerned that his "sexual infidelities were a weakness communists would know how to exploit."

Harold, you mention the president's intelligence - as Eisenhower observed after their meeting.  What I can't understand is how such an intelligent man could not recognize that he was flirting with danger, putting himself and the country in a compromising situation.  Did he not believe there was danger?  Or did  affairs with some of these women make it more exciting for him?  Also, wasn't it just plain  exhausting for a man said to be in constant pain.  

But how was this kept from the American public if so well known abroad?  Kempe tells us that the Kennedy administration kept the CIA and FBI he inherited in place to "prevent the release of damaging intelligence about his past." 

[JoanP]

"I remembering being amazed at the time, how well Germany recovered from taking in all the East Berlin and East German refugees after the Wall came down." Ella

Ella, I don't think the influx was much of a surprise - it was a well-known fact that East Germans  had been risking their lives coming west, since that wall went up.
 Can we talk a bit about how Berlin was divided at war's end?  Was the west always a more desirable part of the city?  I'm amazed that West Berlin became so prosperous, considering its location.  Access to the city in East Germany was crucial, wasn't it?  Still, its success was quite a feat.  No wonder Khrushchev is concerned about the influx of refugees to the West.  

[PatH]

JoaanK has been been having computer problems.  She will be back to amplify her remarks when she can.

[HaroldArnold]

Regarding West Berlins Economic prosperity in the 1960’S, I think it was the West German national prosperity that drove West Berlin' prosperity.  Within West Berlin its self I suspect the prosperity was mostly derived from the French English, and US administered government as well as rebuilding the city from the rubble left after the war.  West Germany by 1961 had many popular items on the US. market.  I myself owned a German made amplifier, record changer, and Speakers.  Also the Volkswagen was a popular best selling automobile being driven by many people worldwide.  Perhaps some of you owned one during this period.

[HaroldArnold]

Regarding JFK’s treatment by the press he seems to have held an almost mystical position with all of the Media sources.  Looking back it seems in their eyes he could do no wrong.  In contrast Nixon seemed a favorite whipping boy and most other politicians at the time considered themselves popular targets  But JFK could have Marilyn Monroe in the Lincoln bedroom with our a whisper. All of the Kennedy’s shared this favor at least until 1968 when Ted’s accident caused the death of a woman campaign worker and scratched him as a future President though he continued in the Senate without serious opposition for another 40 years.
  
On the Voting Age Issue I suspect the percentage of old people who vote is less than with other age groups.  Here at Chandler of the 40 or so resident at this Independent Living Apartment only 6 or 7 take advantage of the free Chandler Bus trip to the Voting place.  That’s less than 20 % of the total residents.   This despite the well publicized free opportunity.    

In 1960 it appears to me that young people did turn out and it was this turnout that resulted in JFK’s win.  Even so I don’t think a high percentage turnout of young voters is common.  Generally it appears they just have other more interesting things to be concern about, and just don’t think their vote would make a difference.    But another example of young people turn out was the 1972 Presidential race that won the Democratic Party nomination for George McGovern.  Though it won him the nomination he lost the election  with a landslide victory for the Republican,  a second term for Nixon.  

[mabel1015j]

Actually i believe i have read that the age group most likely to vote are the 60-somethings.

I found this chart about the last elections. Scroll down a little to see the chart.

http://politicalarithmetik.blogspot.com/2008/08/age-turnout-and-votes.html

[Jonathan]

'Kennedy kept the CIA and FBI he inherited in place to "prevent the release of damaging intelligence about his past." '

From awesome to awful. Leaving himself open to blackmail. I had to shake my head over that statement in the book. Come in JoanK and tell us it's part of the fiction. Is that what Comalot was all about - a personal agenda? What was it he was going to do for his country?

[Ella Gibbons]

The "ASK NOT" speech, JONATHAN, yes, we remember.  Weren't the various versions interesting?  

Does everyone lke the short stories our author has injected into the text?  How about that sniper coming in from the cold?

Short summaries, JOANP, of the situation after the Yalta and the Potsdam Conferences on the division of Germany:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrbcO2FoiDo

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x8M88fIpCFY&feature=related

Does anyone have details to add about the division?  Inside the cover of the book is an excelent map.  I know after reading about several of these leaders I want to learn more; particularly, I want to read Krushchev's Memoirs which are often quoted in the book.  

HAROLD had a good explanation for the prosperity of West Berlin, but this could, in part, be due to the refugees that fled from communism and repression in East Berlin, don't you think?   

[JoanK]

Just lostt a long post quoting Kempe's phrases where I felt he was claiming to know what Kruschof thought without telling us how. I'll try short posts, so I won't lose them:

None of these are footnoted.

p. 6: K was "working impatiently ...in hopes that"
Nixon "humiliated him in Moscow"

p.7 K "bathed in the crowd"

[JoanK]

lost another post. It must cut off after time

p.9. K's "choice of language was calculated"'

[Jonathan]

Thanks for the 'chapter and verse' Joan.  A good reminder to read critically. Khrushchev is definitely one to watch. Also on page 6, is the statement, 'Their conclusion was that he (Khrushchev) was more of an ebullient activist than, as many had believed until then, a Machiavellan communist in Stalin's mold.'

We're not told who the many are. But in the next sentence we read 'Another top-secret personality sketch...etc'. Perhaps these top-secret materials are still classified. Of course we know that by 1961 Khrushchev had put his Stalinist ways behing him. But still a Machiavellan?

[Jonathan]

Sure, Joan, your 'time' has run out. That's adjustable.

[kiwilady]

Regarding Krushchev, I believe documents are available now that the Cold War is over. Much information is available to researchers. Maybe this author has spoken to those who had contact with or information about Kruschev and his mindset at the time of the Cold War.

I believe fear and mistrust was mutual. The USA was mistrustful and so was the USSR. Hence the arms race.

Carolyn

[JoanK]

p.11 "Kroll's view"
p. 12 "Kroll assumed"

[JoanK]

p.13 "Kruschev remained certain"..

He paints a picture of what K was thinking and feeling without documenting it. Later he does the same for Kennedy.

[JoanK]

You get the point? Sorry to drag it on. In spite of all that, the book is interesting.

JONATHAN: How do you adjust the time?