Berlin 1961 by Frederick Kempe ~ September Book Club Online

[JoanK]

The Book Club Online is  the oldest  book club on the Internet, begun in 1996, open to everyone.  We offer cordial discussions of one book a month,  24/7 and  enjoy the company of readers from all over the world.  everyone is welcome to join in.

Berlin 1961 by Frederick Kempe

JOIN US in September as we renew our history, a more accurate history, of events that most of us remember very well.   Historians are now able to not only do research into fresh new documents, but personal interviews have uncovered a wealth of information that is stunning to read.  A young, untested, wealthy,  U.S. president meets a Russian premier, son of a coal miner; Kennedy and Khrushchev, opposite in every way, yet holding the world in their hands.  It's drama at the very best. President Kennedy called the year a "string of disasters;" Kempe called it one of the worst of any modern presidency.  The book is divided into three parts:  THE PLAYERS, THE GATHERING STORM AND THE SHOWDOWN. Fascinating history, dramatic with new research into documents never before explored.

The Players

         

 Left to right: Krushchev - Ulbricht - Kennedy - Adenauer

Discussion Schedule

Sept  1-8      Part I
Sept  9-15    Part II
Sept 16-30   Part III and Epilogue

 

Some Topics for Consideration
Sept 9-15      Part II  Pages 129-290

1.  How did the President elect prepare himself for performing the duties of the office during the pre-inauguration weeks, Nov 5, 1960 – Jan 19, 1961?  To whom (what individuals) did he go for council, information and advice on how to run the Presidential office?   Discuss the Inauguration  Ceremony.   Do you have any personal recollection of it?

2. What were the results of the sub-rosa meetings between the President’s brother, Robert Kennedy and the Soviet NKVD Agent attached to the Washington Soviet Embassy, Georgi Bloshakov.  More specifically from these meetings what details did Kennedy learn about Russian policy and plans and what details did Khrushchev learn about American plans?
   
3. Discuss the Bay of Pigs Invasion of Cuba.  What last minute changes by President Kennedy in plans greatly affected the results?  What were the results and the consequence of the operation?  And what did the President learn from it?

4. When Kennedy agreed to meet Khrushchev was he ready?  Discuss the course of the two day conference in Vienna, June 3-4 1961 and the events leading to its rather abrupt end.   In particular discuss specific Kennedy failures mentioned on pp232-234.

5. How would you describe the mood of the President and his American advisors on Air Force one after the abrupt second day conference ending?

6. Discuss the situation at the end of the Vienna meeting resulting from Khrushchev’s ultimatum that he would sign a peace treaty East Germany ending WW II giving East Germany full control of its borders effectively ending U.S. rights in Berlin.
 
7.  At this point what options were open for President Kennedy?  Did Kennedy seem to realize limitations on his Power to respond?  To whom did Kennedy turn for advice? What concrete steps were taken in preparation for war? Who were the hawks, who were the doves?   How did a new more detailed map of East Berlin figure in determining future events?
 
 Related links:
Frederick Kempe's home page;
  New York Times Book Review;

Discussion Leaders:  Ella  & Harold

I will always remember the picture of Jackie in the Washington paper the next morning in her gown, going through the snowflakes with her eyes shining. It sealed the image of her a a princess. Even my mother, a life-long Republican, who couldn't stand Kennedy, loved Jackie.

The only time I saw jackie in person was earlier that year. I worked at a building that was about a block from where the kennedys lived. There was an incredibly steep street that ran from N street  to M Street. (to tell you how steep it was, the building I worked in was built into the side of the hill. M street was the ground floor: N street was the eighth floor). One day, some coworkers and I were standing on M street. We looked up, and saw Jackie kennedy, 8 or nine months pregnant with john-john, wearing 4 inch high heels, walking very unsteadily down that hill. We all wanted to run and help her, but were afraid if we did, secret service men would pop out and shoot us. We all watched, not breathing, until she reached the bottom safely. I'm afraid after that I always thought that she was a princess, but not very bright!  - JoanK

[Ella Gibbons]

4" heels and pregnant, JOANK!!  wOW!   She didn't have common sense, although I think she did!  So maybe she needed to feel feminine that day?  Who knows.  Thanks for the post.

I remember the TV documentary she did on the White House and I didn't like her whispery voice but what a good thing she did.

And, TRAUDE!  We are so happy to see you here!  Thanks for the post and you are the perfect person to remember all of this from your unique perspective!

[Ella Gibbons]

Macmillan and Kennedy related by marriage, sharing the bond of wit, breeding and brains, both having fought in WWII, hit it off very well.    Did this continue through the following years?  What do we know of MacMillan, did England play a role in the Cold War?   

[Jonathan]

Quote from Ella: 'did England play a role in the Cold War?'

What an interesting question. The more one thinks about it, the more interesting it gets. Macmillan was determined to be a player, but didn't have too many cards to play. On page 146 we're told:

'At age sixty-seven, Macmillan had grown increasingly convinced that most of London's aspirations in the world depended on its ability to influence Washington.'

Macmillan set out on that course immediately. We read about the letter he sent the president-elect that proposed a "Grand Design" for the future. That reminds of the appeal that Churchill made to Roosevelt with his "Grand Alliance."

In Europe Macmillan must have felt himself almost isolated. Khrushchev ignored him. De Galle kept him out of the plans he was concocting with Adenauer fof a new Europe.

How interesting to have Acheson appear on the stage. Present at the Creation, he now plays a significant role in the direction of affairs. 

[HaroldArnold]

For  me England definitely played an active role in the cold war.  Particular in the earlier Berlin blockade crisis.  The RAF certainly participated in the air lift supplying Berlin as did  Canada and even Australia.   As a member of NATO England and Canada would certainly been involved in any military conflict.  By 1962 England was definitively in a weakened position much involved in the devolution of the former empire.  In 1962 it was no longer the force it had been through  WW II but retain a measure of power illustrated by Kennedy's stop in London after the Vienna conference with Khrushchev break down.

[HaroldArnold]

Early in Part II Kempe begins to stress the basic differences between the East/West issue’s importance to Khrushchev and Kennedy.  For Khrushchev the open Berlin Border that permitted easy immigration of East German people to West Germany was the first and foremost problem.  Kennedy on the other hand was concern with other issues such as the spread of Communism in Laos and elsewhere, a nuclear testing treaty, and military disarmament.   Without a firm agreement on issues to be discussed, any meeting of the chiefs of State really had no chance of success. 

I think there was also another issue that Kempe does not stress in the book.  That is the United States and west position that any treaty concerning disarmament be back up by onsite inspections by the party opposite.  The Soviet Union was particularly hostile to all suggestions of inspection inside its borders of any nature for any purpose and this issue in itself was sufficient to block any agreements for many years.

[Ella Gibbons]

Interesting JONATHAN AND HAROLD.  Great posts.  Much to think about here, isn't there, if you love history.  And I should say if you remember some of this happening, as I do.

As JONATHAN mentioned, Dean Atcheson, a gentlemen for the ages, a statesman, the grand old man of containment as he is oftimes called.  Here is Wikipedia's description and isn't he handsome?  

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dean_Acheson

Atcheson gave JFK some good advice:  "Kennedy's 1500 Cubans were no match for Castro's 25,000 Cubans" and would certainly harm the relations with the Soviets over Berllin. Indeed what prophecy, the whole affair brought us to the brink of a nuclear war.

It's not at all funny, but I did smile when I read Acheson's coment (pg. 276) in a speech before the Foreign Service Institute:
"The European view was that we were watching a gifted young amateur practice with a boomerang, when they saw, to their horror, that he had knocked himself out."  A Charlie Chaplin movie went through my mind.

[straudetwo]

Yes, Ella,  I too remember the night when Jackie hosted a TV tour of the White House. It was a Sunday night, I believe, and my attention  was divided between preparing a meal - out of sight of the TV in the LR.  The program was much anticipated and the subject  of huge  interest. I ran back and forth several times and did not really manage to see a great deal. But I well remember her saying several times,
"... and we decided to leave it just the way it was." She enunciated it clearly, but I must confess the monotonous delivery disappointed me.

Harold,  oh, the eve of JFK's Inauguration day - No one who was there could ever forget the masses of snow that fell, starting in the afternoon, and continuing without pause. We didn't do much work that afternoon in the patent law firm in the Pennsylvania Building.  At one point I seriously considered walking back to Arlington, where we lived, across the 14th Street Bridge, but my husband urged me to wait for him -- and I did.

I cannot remember what time it was when he finally arrived, -  my young daughter and the dog in the car, but I'll never forget our being stuck in a monumental traffic jam the likes of which I never saw again, anywhere.  There was no way getting to work the next morning, and
Marymount, my daughter's school,  was closed.

Ella,  since this is a new book, the library gave me only 2 weeks.  ut I'll read as much as I can and store the knowledge. Depending on how long the waiting list is, I may hang on to the book a day or two longer.

More thought needs to be given to the new questions.  However, I would like to say now that JFK certainly surrounded himelf with competent advises and that the good sense to listen to them.  Moreover, I believe he had the courage of his convictions.

[HaroldArnold]

Well, today is the 10 anniversary of 911 and I''ve be been listening to the media Coverage first while still in bed on radio followed by TV, CNBC the same business channel I was watching 10 years ago when the event occurred.   This Morning  I plan to attend an ecumenical service at my church, Laurel Heights Methodist. conducted by  the minister  a rabbi , and an Islamic Cleric.   I feel it should be both appropriate and interesting.

This afternoon I will be at my volunteer work and the San Antonio Missions National historical Park, meaning I will not be back here until evening.  Meanwhile you are welcome to continue with either your Berlin 1961 comments or if you wish your 911 10th anniversary remembrances.

[Jonathan]

What a day of remembrance 911 has become. My wife and I were in the Berkshires, in western Massachusetts. We were just finishing an early tour of The Mount (the Edith Wharton place), when we heard exclamations of distress from staff members. We continued on to the Melville place up the road (Arrowhead?). Tours there had already been cancelled, so we spent some time on the parking lot listening to the radio news from New York. On the way to Cape Ann... I can still hear the solemn tolling of church bells and people queing at curbside blood clinics. For the next few days we spent more time in front of the TV than we did on the ocean beach.

[PatH]

That day was already a nightmare for me before the crashes, because I was with my husband in a hospital during one of the crises of his final illness, trying to keep him from ripping his IVs out again. The TV wasn't working, so I was listening to gossip  from the nurses, plus radio broadcasts with much misleading information.  I could see the hospital's helipad out the window, and soon security guards appeared there with drawn guns.  It was assumed that we might get some of the Pentagon casualties and no one knew what to expect.  All nurses were to remain on duty, never mind shifts, until further notice.

I only saw the TV recaps late that night, and the whole thing still seems totally surreal to me.

[marjifay]

Ella said, "I remember the TV documentary she did on the White House and I didn't like her whispery voice but what a good thing she did."

I could never stand to listen to Jackie Kennedy for more than about two minutes, with her phony, breathless, monotonous sounding voice.  I always wondered if she spoke that way in real life off camera, or just in public.

Marj

[Ella Gibbons]

HELLO MARJ!  Glad you are here and I agree with you about her voice.  It seemed so affected; certainly she didn't talk that way in private.

It was a sad remembrance for us all wasn't it?  

Do you want to go into the details of the Bay of Pigs or will it suffice to say it was a disaster for JFK and the country.  I think the book makes clear that President Kennedy distrusted the military and most of his advisors after that.  It would seem to me that Kennedy might want to back off meeting with foreign leaders after such a  debacle.  But no administration can ignore Europe or the world; after it was clear that Russia and the United States had nuclear bombs it was imperative that they meet and try to soften relations between the two countries and the Berlin crisis was the "most pregnant" at the time.

Were there other lessons that JFK learned from the Bay of Pigs?

And is this Bolshakov fellow a player in the eyes of the administration in dealings with the Soviet Union?  

[Ella Gibbons]

Somewhere in this discussion I would like to inject a brief conversation, get your opinion, on whether nuclear weapons have made the world safer or more treacherous? 

[HaroldArnold]

Regarding the Bay of Pigs invasion and Ella's comment thereon, as I understand it the plan had been prepared during the past year by the Defense dept and the CIA and was modified materially during weeks before its launch to eliminate much U.S. direct involvement.  Apparently  Kennedy himself was involved in the fatal modification that included most if not all U.S. air support and most other direct U.S. involvement.  In its revised form the navy simply put on shore some 1500 Cubans who had been partially trained in one of the Central American Countries.  In the absence  of continuing U.S. air cover the  force was no match for the Cuban military and were quickly routed as prisoners.  

The result was a long period of embarrassment for the Kennedy Administration  In the end the prisoners were ransomed by the U.S.  The pay off involved was in the form of  U.S. farm tractors badly needed by the Cuban economy.  

[HaroldArnold]

Let's have some discussion on the subrosa meetings of Robert Kennedy with Soviet NKVD Agent Georgi Bolshakov who was accredited to the Washington Soviet Embassy .  The meetings were secret on Mall benches or the back seat in parked cars.  I'm sure Robert Kennedy got a kick out of this extra-office assignment from his brother, but it was certainly a job for CIA professionals, and not included in the Attorney General's job description.    The result as might have been expected were not good.  Khrushchev ended up learning more about the U.S. Berlin position than Kennedy learned about the Russian position.

Incidentally "Subrosa" is an English Word even though our Seniorlearn spelling checker does not recognize it.  It came into the language in medieval times when it was the practice to put a Rose over the door to the palace chamber where the Privy Council were meeting in a secret session.  So meeting under the rose meant secret.  The word came into my language when early in my career I received a tightly sealed  package from my boss prominently  labeled "SUBROSA."  This sent me to the dictionary that gave the definition I wrote above.

[HaroldArnold]

Regarding Ella's comment calling for our comment on the use of the Atom Bomb on Japan in 1945. Iin my case it almost certainly kept me from becoming an active participation the the invasion of Japan as in early August 1945 I was in the Philippines awaiting assignment to a ship included in the planned invasion of Japan.  The timely surrender after the dropping of atom bombs on two Japanese cities certainly changed the character of my life direction both short and long term.

Regarding the use of atomic energy today, in the 1960's 70's 80's I was involved in the economic planning studies that resulted the the completion of two large nuclear electric generating units that for the last 20 plus years have been producing cheap reliable electric energy to the Texas grid,  Obvious The technology is not suitable for earthquake prone sites in California, Japan and other similar geographic locations.  






s  

[HaroldArnold]

Tomorrow between 8:00 - 10:00 PM, the ABC Network will broadcast a program relative to the JFK Administration. that will include interviews with Jackie Kennedy.  I think this will include an interview never before aired that was made after the death of JFK.   I think I had mentioned this planned broadcast in an earlier post.  It seems certain to be relative to our present discussion and worth watching.

[Jonathan]

I've got another question. Was Khrushchev justified in wondering who was running things in the Kennedy administration? He had two  possible candidates. Rockefeller (money). And Allen Dulles (Intelligence). No mention of the military. Kennedy could not have consulted the military on the Bay of Pigs. Our book tells us that a 'former Yale economics professor...had direct charge of the Cuban operation' (p172).  Kennedy did ask Acheson for his opinion, who reacted rather scornfully, and later questioned Kennedy's judgment, more or less publicly. Then, for the record, he wrote an account of it to his old boss HST, distancing himself from these goings on in Washington.

The things these people said about each other.

Another question. What problems did Kennedy create for himself with his meddling in Cuban affairs? Was Cuba the pesky problem for him that West Berlin was for Khrushchev? Let's not forget that in the end Cuba also contributed to Khrushchev's downfall.

I can't see that Robby helped his brother at all with his diplomatic efforts. He should have left that to the State Department.

[Jonathan]

Thanks, Harold, for the reminder on the ABC progran on Kennedy. I'm looking forward to that.

[Ella Gibbons]

Yes, HAROLD AND JONATHAN, I'm looking forward to the program tonight.  Will there be new information do you think?

It's amazing that we can still construct, imperfectly at times, historical events that have been hidden for years.  This Bolshakov material was all new to me; it came from oral history recorded by Bobby, and Soviet records.  JFK approved of his brother's meetings with this fellow and certainly he must have known that this Russian was attempting to learn what he could from the meetings.  This Bolshakov was well regarded by Washington society, JFK's friends - our book mentions Ben Bradlee (whose book A GOOD LIFE was one of our early discussions on Seniornet) and Kenny ODonnell, Ted Sorensen, Pierre Salinger.  From any of those sources, the Russian could have picked up information to relay to Krushchev, but he was just a "useful pawn" and not a significant player in this drama.

In so many instances JFK showed poor judgment and, no doubt, Krushchev was justified in believing that Kennedy had demonstrated incompetence, weakness, and the resolve to bring to a successful conclusion the action in Cuba.   so important to American prestige in the world.

Good questions, JONATHAN, I was amazed also that JFK put those men in charge of the Cuban operation.  The whole operation was disastrous.

HAROLD, I didn't mean dropping an atom bomb.  What I meant to ask if the "threat" of nuclear weapons has made the world safer?  No country wants to be annihilated and one knows that if he drops the bomb, his enemy will do the same.  There are all kinds of ways to look at it, but I tend to think that is perhaps the best way?  For example, Iran now has nuclear capability but will she use it on Israel or her enemies?  I doubt it!   

[JoanK]

Knowing that the A bomb is out there and more and more people have access to it is like knowing there is a bomb hidden somewhere in your house. I spent most of the 50s working for a top secret research group: we were all convinced that the Russians were going to bomb us any minute. it got to the point where every time a plane flew over, we would all stop what we were doing and wait.

In retrospect, that was paranoa. There was even a group that made a report to the president saying that since Russia was going to bomb us, we should get in first and bomb them. Luckily, the president was not so paranoid. but it only takes one crazy person with power to do untold damage.

[HaroldArnold]

Good points Jonathan.  I can see why Khrushchev and others might have wondered who was running the government but actually by the constitution it was the President who happened to be John F. Kennedy.  Truman had pointed this out a few years earlier with his “The buck stops here,” remark.  For me the question is more did he know what he was doing and did he make the best decisions?  Were they the right decisions?  Looking back over the short term things do not look very good.  Through the summer, fall, and winter of 1961 people both East and West learned to live with Cold War tension and uncertainty.  Looking at the short term spanning the rest of 1961 and even the next decade we can’t give him and his successors high grades with people East and West learning to live with cold war uncertainty.   It was some 2 decades later before the atmosphere began to cool with a certain understanding termed “détente,” and another decade after that before a really peaceful permanent resolution was achieved.   So in summary though both Kennedy and Khrushchev may not always have made the best decision, at least they avoided making the wrong decisions that would have begun WW III.

This leads to another question.  Does the U.S. system of selecting new Presidents lead to inexperienced but popular individuals being elected in that office?  JFK was young with a good education , but only one term in the Senate when he was elected President.   In fact service in the legislative branch is quite different from service in the Executive branch, particularly the Chief Executive Position.   This inexperience necessitated the crash course in Executive Management following the Jan 20th inauguration  that continued until the departure for Vienna to meet Khrushchev.  Interestingly our current President has a similar one term Senate apprenticeship before his election.  Other recent Governors have previous been State Governors again positions quite different from the Presidency.
 

Jonathan is the Canadian Parliamentary system more certain to install a more thoroughly experienced Prime Minister than our American system?  It appears to me this might be likely because as I understand it most new PM’s have served long apprenticeships in the Cabinet or in a Shadow Cabinet in cases where his party is out of power.  Would this system not be more likely to a produce a more prepared Chief Executive?  

[Jonathan]

Canadian politics have (has) been turned on its head in the last few months. Everything seems up in the air. We had been limping  along for five years with a minority government (doing an excellent caretaking job). Neither of the old, historical Liberal or Conservative parties managed to get a majority of seats in the House of Commons in the frequent elections. Imagine a third party in the U.S. with its delicate balance between Republicans and Democrats. Not only did we have a relatively small socialist party (doing well with, say, thirty seats in the House) but also a fify-seat Quebec Bloc party dedicated to breaking up the country. And then the miraculous happened.

In our May, 2011 election the leader of the small socialist party swept Quebec with his charisma and offer of an alternate choice and added the Bloc seats to his own and achieved official Opposition status in the House, destroying the Liberal  party, and giving the Conservative party a 'temporary' majority. Jack Layton looked like a possible Prime Minister down the road. But Fate stepped in and killed our Canadian hero. Layton fell victim to cancer just a couple of months after his most unusual political victory. The Prime Minister, out of gratitude and national pride offered the family a state funeral for Jack, who now enjoys an icon status in our proud Canadian hearts.

[PatH]

I fell way behind in the reading, have only now gotten to the eve of Vienna.  The advisors on both sides are playing a crucial role in keeping Kennedy and Khrushchev from understanding each other's intentions.  Both deliberately and accidentally, each side is downplaying the more unpalatable bits in reports to the leaders.  Bolshakov doesn't know everything, and doesn't tell everything he does know to Robert Kennedy.  Robert fills in the gaps with mistaken assumptions.  Tommy Thompson soft-pedals crucial parts in his reports to Kennedy.  As a result, Kennedy is taking a long time to appreciate how focussed Khrushchev is on Berlin, and Khrushchev is taking a long time to take Kennedy seriously.

Probably neither man would consent to a meeting if he really understood the other's thoughts, and yet a meeting seems to be necessary.  Quite a dilemma.

[PatH]

A couple of striking details from the Paris interlude: the bathtub meetings are amusing to think of--JFK lolling in that huge rococco tub, talking policy.

And the medications!  Kennedy is deciding the fate of the world while high on amphetamines!

[Ella Gibbons]

A crazy person, JOANK, yes, all we can hope for is that none of the leaders of the world that have the atomic bomb are that crazy.  It would mean armageddon, don't you think?

" Does the U.S. system of selecting new Presidents lead to inexperienced but popular individuals being elected in that office? " HAROLD, how would you propose we select a president?  Was Eisenhower experienced in goverment affairs?  In the past few decades we have had several governors elected president - should that be a prerequisite?  Or Congresisonal experience?   What?  

JONATHAN, your ups-downs in government reflect our own, it han't been a good time world wide to be a leder, one recession after another, if not depression.  Too bad about your Jack Layton, though,  fate will step in where least likely.  

If we had only known about JFK's health problems!  And those medications, which he shared with Jackie at times.  But what would we have done?  

PATH, one wonders how these two men ever managed a meeting, each made speeches, got advice; while in Paris De Gaulle actually advised Kennedy to use force if necessary - "de Gaulle told Kennedy he could deter the Soviets only with a willingness to use nuclear weapons, which was precisely what the president wanted to avoid."

Scary!  And more frightening when we remember nuclear missiles in Cuba!

My thoughts turn to how this all came about.  As HAROLD said earlier, the Soviet Union was allowed by Eisenhower to enter Berlin before the Allies because they had suffered so many casaulties; however, probably all four victors felt the division of the country and Berlin a mistake that should have been avoided.  There could have been a better way and all this would have been avoided.

[HaroldArnold]

The following summarizes the schedule for the completion of our discussion as planned by Ella and myself:

We will divide Part 3 into halves with Chapters 13, 14, and 15 our subject during the 3rd week.  Ella will provide new Discussions Considerations in the heading for these chapters beginning Friday morning (September 16th). 

Chapters 16, 17, and 18 will come the following 4th week beginning Friday September 23rd.  I will provide Discussion Considerations for the 4th week that will appear in the heading September 23rd.  This will allow conclusion as scheduled September 30th.

[HaroldArnold]

Ella asked:  " Does the U.S. system of selecting new Presidents lead to inexperienced but popular individuals being elected in that office? " HAROLD, how would you porpose we select a president?  Was Eisenhower experienced in goverment affairs?  In the past few decades we have had several governors elected president - should that be a prerequisite?  Or Congresisonal experience?   What?

My earlier post concerning our current systems propensity to select presidential candidates based on an individuals personal popularity stems from my personal observance concerning the winner of nominations and elections going back to 1940.  As I see it personal popularity based on appearance, speaking ability and other rather superficial factors carry more weight with the voting public than real background knowledge of issues facing the new President his first day in office.  Fortunately most new Presidents  have not faced the immediate pending crisis that Kennedy faced in 1961. 

Today I think under our current custom the Vice Presidency might be a better place for presidential training.  As I understand it, the Vice President now is well informed on details of all issues of the Presidential Office.  This is in marked contracts to the situation in earlier times when a Vice president knowledge of day to day presidential activity was what he read in the newspaper. 

Successful Legislative and State Chief Executive experience provide an indication of potential competence but such a background offers no knowledge of the mass multiple issue details faced the first day at the office.    In particular  JFK and Our current president came to the presidency with less than a single Senate term. 

I noted that the Parliamentary Government as developed in The U.K. and now used by the former Dominions and many European and Oriental democracies provides a better prepared in-coming  Prime Minister because of prior executive assignments as ministers of the various department or in shadow governments.  An Example when Winston Churchill became Prime Minister on May 10, 1940 he knew exactly what the dismal war situation and was prepared immediately to do what it was in his power to do about it.   True the Parliamentary System by combining the Executive and Legislative Functions loses the advantages stemming from the planned constitutional separation of legislative, executive and judicial functions.   

[Jonathan]

JFK only felt comfortable in his hot tub. If only he had invited Khrushchev to join him there. Their discussions might have been more profitable. Actually, I think the Vienna talks were a success. More so for Kennedy. He was there only to get to know his adversary. He came to talk, not to deal. Obviously they talked a different talk. It was smart of Kennedy to permit Khrushchev to sound off. Kennedy was content to stand pat. What could he have wanted from Khrushchev? Khrushchev had the pressing problems. Kennedy didn't dare make any concessions after the Cuban debacle.

What interesting talk they had that first day. Comparing systems. Kennedy talking freedom and Khrushchev talking historical necessity. And through it all these two men were pioneering nuclear diplomacy.

[PatH]

My thoughts turn to how this all came about.  As HAROLD said earlier, the Soviet Union was allowed by Eisenhower to enter Berlin before the Allies because they had suffered so many casaulties; however, probably all four victors felt the division of the country and Berlin a mistake that should have been avoided.  There could have been a better way and all this would have been avoided.

It wasn't just the Soviet Union's past casualties that led to Eisenhower letting them get to Berlin first.  Pushing across the country to get to Berlin first would have cost considerable American lives, and Ike was unwilling to spend lives for a city when the war was essentially already won.

[HaroldArnold]

Regarding decision holding the advance of Western forces allowing the Soviet Army to Take Perlin.  I think this decision was either expressed or at any rate implied from the Yalta Agreement.   I don't think Eisenhower had much problem with the decision, but I suspect Patton and maybe Montgomery did.   It certainly saved  the lives of may Western troops.

[mabel1015j]

Just some bits and pieces FYI.

David Halberstam says in his book "The Fifties" that Harry Truman had formed a group of three to advise him about continuing reasearch on a hydrogen bomb. At the mtg On Jan 31, 1950 with Truman the three were voicing their concerns that an H bomb could mean the end of humanity. Truman interrupted them to say he thought an H bomb would never be used, but because of the way the Russians were behaving he thought he had no recourse. The mtg lasted SEVEN minutes. "Can the Russians do it?" Truman asked.all three men nodded yes. "In that case," T said,"we have no choice. We'll go ahead." it was Truman's first major decision of the decade.
!?!?!? (He THOUGHT an H bomb would never be used) holy cow! But so far he's been right!

So as long as we have reasonable decision-makers, i think atomic weapons have been something of a deterrent, now "medicated" decision makers concers me, altho JFK made it work.

Eisenhower obviously had a lot of administrative experience in the army and as president of Columbia U. Did that seem to help him as president of the country? I think working in other executive postions does not help with being president because in other exec postions you can give orders or make a "request" and it happens - not generally true when head of the exec
branch, working to get legislation passed is a whole different animal. Obama attempting to be that "inclusive" administrator hasn't worked either. As i said before, that is an on the job training position, there doesn't appear to be any way to prepare. Maybe being in the cabinet or being vp is the closest - or maybe having been the spouse of a setting president! 

Between Diane Sawyer's dramatic inflection of every sentence and Jackie's breathless idealized stories about Jack, i was close to being nauseous watching the show last night. I don't think it added anything to historical knowledge and may distort it for people who have no knowledge of the Kenndys.

Jean

[PatH]

Experience can help in some ways.  After Kennedy's assassination, LBJ got Congress to pass a lot of things that Kennedy had wanted but hadn't been able to get.  Partly it was reaction to the shooting, but it was also because LBJ had so much experience in how to get what you wanted out of Congress.  That doesn't help you with international relations, though.

Truman made the only decision he could.  Since he couldn't prevent the bomb from being made by others, he had to make it too.

[JoanK]

With the A bomb decisions, remember that now we're not just talking abouit the leaders of the US and Russia, we're talking about leaders of many smaller countries as well (North Korea? Iran?)

[HaroldArnold]

Regarding Jean’s comments on ABC’s airing of the Jackie Kennedy Interviews, I sort of enjoyed it as an interesting peak back into the past.  But it was a one sided look back: a fantasy vision of a Camelot that really never was.  For this reason it really did not add much to his history.

Regarding LBJ success in obtaining passage of Major Civil Rights Legislation after Kennedy's death; this was indeed the major success of his administration.  I agree with PatH's comments that Truman made the right decision in continuing the research relative to nuclear weapons.   As she said he made the only decision the he could make under the circumstances.  It would have been a terrible situation to have been without them during the later Cold War years.  

[JoanK]

It wasn't my comments. But I'm not surprised. most reporting is one-sided.

[Jonathan]

"Oh, God, can you ever imagine what would happen to the country if Lyndon was president?" JFK. Jacqueline remembers hearing him say it.

Your presidential selection process in the U.S.A. is about as democratic as it could possibly get. After the votes are counted it is the office that makes the man. Or woman, when her turn comes.

[kiwilady]

I think there is too much money involved in politics. To campaign the candidates need huge amounts of money. The candidates become hostage to the Corporations because of donations. Thereby the ordinary person in the street has little representation. Policy making is often dictated by the big donors. I think politics today is extremely corrupt. That includes the political system in my own small country. 

As for Presidential decisions I believe leaders are only as good as their advisors. No man can know everything. JFK must have had advisors. I know our PM is clueless and relies on his two henchman. In fact so much so that we believe he is only a figurehead. Our PM has little political experience and his background is International banking. I do not believe his past profession qualifies him to lead the country. People like his smile. ( his nickname in banking was the smiling assassin)

I worry about a rogue nation using nuclear weapons. I wish they had never been invented and even my father was horrified at the destruction in Japan. ( he was there just after the Japanese capitulated.)

[serenesheila]

I have been quite ill.  Several weeks ago, I passed out and fell off of my toilet.  I woke up pn my bathroom floor, with a large bump on my head.  I had a concussion.  Have not been able to read, or absorb.  I am finally begging
tp fee; a bit better/

About a week after my fall, I came down with the flu.  So, I haven't been online.  A few weeks in bed,nnin and I am begining tp feel mpre like myself.  I will try to catch up.

Sheila