Meeting at Potsdam

Rating:
Summary: I agree with Dustin, with certain caveats!
Review: I think Dustin has hit the nail on the head about this book. Mee is a bit glib, and flings out ideas that do not resonate well with WW2 scholars. Look at Mee's credentials: an editor of Horizon Mag and the author of a book about the confrontation between Pope Leo X and Martin Luther. (A substantive topic, but not relating to WW2.) Having said that, this book contains some great tales and gives a very interesting set of insights about the three big boys who met at Potsdam. It's a book for history buffs only, and, if you are in that category, it's a smooth read.

Rating:
Summary: All Politicians Are Rats
Review: Meeting at Potsdam is a well written and engaging account of...you guessed it, the meeting of the big three at Potsdam, Germany in July 1945. There is good attention paid here to the sort of detail that brings history to life. Churchill being stalked briefly by a German woman as he tours the ruins of Berlin, for example. The writing style is almost novelistic - it often seems as though you are reading a work of fiction. This style makes for an enjoyable book but also underlines a certain willingness to play with the facts in order to advance the case being made.

Mee takes the view that no matter what country or system politicians are from, they invariably turn out to be rats. They're all a bunch of cynical, devious individuals who have no hesitation sacrificing whatever suits them, including human life, to achieve their objectives and make themselves look good. It's easy to agree with his viewpoint, but following the distortions used to support it gets real old real fast.

Churchill is portrayed as a bumbling, though conniving old bag of imperial ambition - and a bad painter to boot. It's humorous up to a point, until you stop to consider the man's accomplishments, not least of which was his foresight about the clash of civilizations that later became known as the Cold War (and he's widely known as a good painter). In a major statement of the obvious, Stalin is called a monster; and then Harry Truman is portrayed as being not a whole lot better. Haven't you heard? The use of the atomic bomb against Japan was nothing but cold blooded murder. Truman knew Japan was beaten and the war could have easily been ended by issuing a promise to the Japanese that their sacred emperor would be left intact. That's all it would have taken. The battle of Okinawa that ended only a few weeks before with it's massive U.S. casualties and fanatical Japanese resistance meant nothing to Truman. Japanese plans to arm civilians and fight to the finish were a minor detail. After all, the sophisticated types back then were clairvoyant and just knew the planned invasion was a feint and would never happen. And the attack on Pearl Harbor? Ancient history by 1945. The fact that most Americans wanted the emperor removed from power? Truman should have known better than the great unwashed. The policy of unconditional surrender? Another instance of political posturing. Truman and Roosevelt before him had elections to win and it made a good slogan. Yeah, sure.

Mee deserves credit for recognizing that the Japanese militarists who controlled the country blocked any real effort to negotiate a peace. This is a lot more than most who advance that line will admit. In their view, the Japanese were apparently being controlled by Truman, who had the ability to dictate when and how peace would come about. But then again, pointing out the the Japanese could have opened negotiations earlier fits in with the books' overriding theme about politicians. Yes, even the Japanese ones were evil. Gosh, who would have thought.

The majority of what was discussed at Potsdam concerned the situation in Europe. The occupation of Germany, borderlines, reparations and spheres of influence were the most important issues and the book accordingly focuses on these topics more than others. The most interesting thing about the treatment of these topics is that the Soviet point of view is well represented and easy to understand. The Soviets had borne the brunt of the fighting and destruction during the war and wanted some help in rebuilding. They also hoped to create a buffer zone of friendly states to help prevent another invasion. Stalin feared that democracy might bring anti-Soviet governments to power. He thought it possible that western insistence on things like free elections and other basic human rights were nothing but a bargaining position. Since Franco's Spain had been an ally of Hitler's, Stalin thought the West should remove the right wing dictator. If their commitment to democracy was real, they would seek to establish a more democratic regime in this country that was clearly a part of the western sphere. Truman's response was noncommittal, which left Stalin with the impression that democracy need not be established in places like Poland or Hungary. So there you have it - democracy, dictatorship, what's the difference? They're just two competing political systems.

It almost comes as a surprise when the cold war revisionists are slammed. So it wasn't all America's fault. That's good to know. I would have guessed otherwise from much of what's in this book. Perhaps it's nit picking but there was no mention anywhere of the decision reached at Potsdam to divide Korea along the 38th parallel. I can't help but wonder if this is because no one has found a way to pin responsibility for the communist attack there on the U.S.

It could be that Meeting at Potsdam deserves a third star. After all, there aren't many books on this specific subject and it's not a bad read. If you're interested enough in this topic to read a whole book about it (and don't ask me what my problem is that I am), then I suppose it's worth a look. Still the phony objectivity on display here gets a little too grating for me to really like the thing, so two stars it will remain.

Rating:
Summary: All Politicians Are Rats
Review: Meeting at Potsdam is a well written and engaging account of...you guessed it, the meeting of the big three at Potsdam, Germany in July 1945. There is good attention paid here to the sort of detail that brings history to life. Churchill being stalked briefly by a German woman as he tours the ruins of Berlin, for example. The writing style is almost novelistic - it often seems as though you are reading a work of fiction. This style makes for an enjoyable book but also underlines a certain willingness to play with the facts in order to advance the case being made.

Mee takes the view that no matter what country or system politicians are from, they invariably turn out to be rats. They're all a bunch of cynical, devious individuals who have no hesitation sacrificing whatever suits them, including human life, to achieve their objectives and make themselves look good. It's easy to agree with his viewpoint, but following the distortions used to support it gets real old real fast.

Churchill is portrayed as a bumbling, though conniving old bag of imperial ambition - and a bad painter to boot. It's humorous up to a point, until you stop to consider the man's accomplishments, not least of which was his foresight about the clash of civilizations that later became known as the Cold War (and he's widely known as a good painter). In a major statement of the obvious, Stalin is called a monster; and then Harry Truman is portrayed as being not a whole lot better. Haven't you heard? The use of the atomic bomb against Japan was nothing but cold blooded murder. Truman knew Japan was beaten and the war could have easily been ended by issuing a promise to the Japanese that their sacred emperor would be left intact. That's all it would have taken. The battle of Okinawa that ended only a few weeks before with it's massive U.S. casualties and fanatical Japanese resistance meant nothing to Truman. Japanese plans to arm civilians and fight to the finish were a minor detail. After all, the sophisticated types back then were clairvoyant and just knew the planned invasion was a feint and would never happen. And the attack on Pearl Harbor? Ancient history by 1945. The fact that most Americans wanted the emperor removed from power? Truman should have known better than the great unwashed. The policy of unconditional surrender? Another instance of political posturing. Truman and Roosevelt before him had elections to win and it made a good slogan. Yeah, sure.

Mee deserves credit for recognizing that the Japanese militarists who controlled the country blocked any real effort to negotiate a peace. This is a lot more than most who advance that line will admit. In their view, the Japanese were apparently being controlled by Truman, who had the ability to dictate when and how peace would come about. But then again, pointing out the the Japanese could have opened negotiations earlier fits in with the books' overriding theme about politicians. Yes, even the Japanese ones were evil. Gosh, who would have thought.

The majority of what was discussed at Potsdam concerned the situation in Europe. The occupation of Germany, borderlines, reparations and spheres of influence were the most important issues and the book accordingly focuses on these topics more than others. The most interesting thing about the treatment of these topics is that the Soviet point of view is well represented and easy to understand. The Soviets had borne the brunt of the fighting and destruction during the war and wanted some help in rebuilding. They also hoped to create a buffer zone of friendly states to help prevent another invasion. Stalin feared that democracy might bring anti-Soviet governments to power. He thought it possible that western insistence on things like free elections and other basic human rights were nothing but a bargaining position. Since Franco's Spain had been an ally of Hitler's, Stalin thought the West should remove the right wing dictator. If their commitment to democracy was real, they would seek to establish a more democratic regime in this country that was clearly a part of the western sphere. Truman's response was noncommittal, which left Stalin with the impression that democracy need not be established in places like Poland or Hungary. So there you have it - democracy, dictatorship, what's the difference? They're just two competing political systems.

It almost comes as a surprise when the cold war revisionists are slammed. So it wasn't all America's fault. That's good to know. I would have guessed otherwise from much of what's in this book. Perhaps it's nit picking but there was no mention anywhere of the decision reached at Potsdam to divide Korea along the 38th parallel. I can't help but wonder if this is because no one has found a way to pin responsibility for the communist attack there on the U.S.

It could be that Meeting at Potsdam deserves a third star. After all, there aren't many books on this specific subject and it's not a bad read. If you're interested enough in this topic to read a whole book about it (and don't ask me what my problem is that I am), then I suppose it's worth a look. Still the phony objectivity on display here gets a little too grating for me to really like the thing, so two stars it will remain.

Rating:
Summary: Editorializing ruins history
Review: We all know that history is a subjective thing, and Mee acknowledges that too, but saying so shouldn't allow an author to treat his subject like he's chatting over latte and biscotti and feeling very arch. For some reason, Mee is a big fan (apparently) of what he calls "non-ideological" diplomacy (as if such a thing existed); he disparages the politicians and has nice things to say about the state department/foreign ministry types who were there for the "horse trading" -- a phrase Mee uses too often. Further, he has a clear anti-Churchill bias: he calls Churchill's uniforms "costumes" and captions a picture by claiming Churchill is "scowling" at Stalin, when it is clear he is not. Small examples, true, but a thousand cuts kill, too. Truman is always "business-like" and "precise"; Stalin has his own leitmotif. Mee credits Stalin with being the best negotiator, but Stalin's "negotiating" only went as far as the Red Army. Mee also adds emphasis in the quotes to create the sense he is trying to build, not merely to draw attention to something relevant. Basically, he's putting words in mouths. The tone of the whole thing is just bitchy and snippy. It does have lots of actual information -- and Mee's thesis, that the leaders didn't want peace, but tension, is interesting -- but I would hesitate to recommend it except to those really, really interested in Potsdam.