No comments about A Life Interrupted: Insights and Cure of a Depressive.

5 comments about In Command of History: Churchill Fighting and Writing the Second World War.

1. Much has been said and written about Churchill, and not least by the man himself. That, Churchills writing of his own history and legacy, is the subject of David Reynolds book "In Command of History". It is an expertly written story that we don't get to hear that often. How Churchills selective memory made him a greater leader and prophet in his memoirs than he'd been in reality, how money was very important in his decision about how and when to write his memoirs, and how Churchill so expertly merged political ambition with writing history.
   
   Reynolds goes into tiny detail in this volume, which gives his conclusions more authenticity and 'weight', but also tends to make it a tiny bit slow or sluggish. Maybe a couple of generalisations would've been preferable here and there.
   
   Also this level of detail really only comes to its full right if the reader already has a good basic understanding of the second world war and has read Churhills six volume memoirs.If the reader is familiar with these two things, then I my opinion, this volume is not only of great interest, it is essential.
   
   I give it 5 stars because it really is a new layer to be added to the Churchillian myth and the second world war and anyone interested in these subjects will find it most delightful. It dosen't serve as a stand alone work on Churchill and/or the war, but then again, a monograph of Churchills war memoirs cannot be taken out its rightful context and understood on its own.



2. John P. Bernat writes the following amazingly ignorant statement: "The first theme is that some complex financial machinations were done in order for Churchill to avoid payment of 90%+ in income taxes on the book's royalties. It's funny to read this; the ultra-patriotic Churchill puts Al Lay to shame with his capitalistic self-interest."
   
   How about human self-interest? The creativity by which Churchill was able to reduce (not avoid) such punitive taxation is one of the fascinating parts of this superb work of history by David Reynolds. Why would anyone in his right mind labor for thousands of hours only to have the government confiscate all but less than 10% of the value of his labor? If Churchill had wanted to avoid all tax he could have done what many wealthy Britons did (particularly some famous artists and entertainers) and leave Britain for a more tax-friendly environment; Churchill was more than willing to pay "his fair share" of taxes, but not that ridiculous rate. Indeed, Churchill quite understandably said he would not have written these invaluable volumes if all he would receive was "one shilling per pound." Mr. Bernat needs to read "Atlas Shrugged" or "The Fountainhead."
   
   (Or perhaps he should read a critical history of Britain during the post-war period, when the taxation and nationalization policies of Labor precluded the economic recovery that occurred in other countries--until Margaret Thatcher turned the country around and made it the economic powerhouse it is today. Indeed, even the Labor Party in Britain today has largely adopted Thatcher's free-market, moderate tax policies.)



3. This is a brilliant book! It is extremely well researched and written and tells a powerful and interesting story.
   
   "In Command of History" is the history of a series of books - Winston Churchill's monumental and authoritative "The Second World War", his six-volume narrative of Great Britain in World War II. "In Command of History" is also many other things, including a book about World War II, the Cold War,and Churchill himself.
   
   Perhaps the underlying theme of this book is that histories and memoirs written by politicians are not to be totally trusted for their aim is not historical accuracy, but rather to enhance the own political and military reputations and to vindicate their leadership.
   
   Author David Reynolds writes about Churchill with an honesty and insight that is refreshing, covering every aspect of the British leader and his work. Perhaps the most interesting aspect of this book was the ability of Churchill to use classified documents that would not be available to historians for many years to come. Equally interesting are the many documents that were available but not used because they would have cast the author in an unfavorable light.
   
   Certainly one of the most contentious issues that Reynold addresses is Churchill's resistance to Operation Overlord, the Allied Cross Channel invasion of the France. After the war the British leader expended a great deal of energy to show that he supported the invasion, but Reynolds research reveals this is not totally true. Also of interest to this reader was Churchill's decision to plan for an attack on Soviet Russia in 1945, "Operation Unthinkable."
   
   As might be expected "The Second World War" highlights Churchill and Great Britain's many important contributions to the Allied victory in Europe.
   
   Despite Churchill's many shortcomings, Reynolds makes it clear the British leader remains one of the greatest political figures of World War II and history. "In death, as in life," writes the author, "Winston Churchill continues to glow. He remains in command of history."



4. Winston Churchill liked to say that history would be kind to him, as he intended to write it. In Command of History tells the story of how he did this. David Reynolds, a Cambridge professor, has made a close examination of how Churchill wrote The Second World War. In doing so, he shows how Churchill used the books to place his own war-time actions in the best possible light and to further his future political agenda. Reynolds has thus produced a fascinating story of Churchill the writer, Churchill the politician and Churchill the statesman. It is an absorbing account that illuminates an undiscovered corner of the Great Man's career.
   
   Reynolds shows that Churchill tried, and largely succeeded, in framing how history would view World War II. Indeed, by calling his history "The Second World War," he confirmed the name we would give to the conflict (recall that what we now know as "World War I" was originally called "The Great War.") Churchill "wrote" his account mostly while he was the leader of the Conservative opposition in the post-war Labor government of Clement Atlee. Churchill structured his six volume work, written between 1946 and 1954, and released in seriatim, to emphasize the elements of the conflict that he deemed most significant and in which he played the central role. Thus, Volume 1, "The Gathering Storm," was written to drive home the lesson of the failure of appeasement. "The Finest Hour" emphasizes the bravery of the British people at their darkest hour, when they turned to Churchill as Prime Minister in May 1940. By contrast, there is astonishing little about what in retrospect was the main field of combat: The Eastern Front, pitting Russia against Germany.
   
   Reynolds shows that Churchill also had a distinct agenda:
   
   * He painted himself as the chief opponent of appeasement. Reynolds notes, however, that Churchill was hard on Hitler's Germany but softer on Mussolini's Italy (Anthony Eden saw through Mussolini and resigned from Chamberlain's Cabinet because of appeasement towards Italy, not Germany.)
   
   * In Britain's "Finest Hour," he sought to perpetuate the myth of a British government united against any peace with Hitler. He deliberate falsified his account of Cabinet meetings in which Foreign Minister Lord Halifax sought to open negotiations with Hitler, the story of which has only emerged over time (most notably in John Lukacs' Five Days in London: May 1940.)
   
   * He emphasized Britain's close cooperation with America, in part because when he was writing Britain needed America's financial and military support after the war. In doing so, he underplayed friction within the military high command, especially between Gen. Eisenhower and Field Marshall Montgomery. He blunted his opposition to Operation Overlord, the Normandy invasion, by selective editing of published documents and misleading innuendo. He feared bloodshed on the order of World War I and only reluctantly faced up to the need for a cross-channel invasion.
   
   * He tried to appear far-sighted in his fears of a Soviet-dominated post-war Europe. Certainly he was better than Roosevelt in this regard, but he was willing to do deals with Stalin where he could, as when he and Stalin divided up Eastern Europe on a scrap of paper in October 1944.
   
   * He emphasized the importance of the war time conferences, such as Cairo and Tehran, because he liked "Big Man Diplomacy" (what we now call summitry). During the Cold War, he believed that he could reach a rapprochement with the Russians in part by the force of his personality.
   
   Reynolds shows how Churchill shaped his history to make it serve both his historical and political purposes. His historical purposes were to magnify his role in events (not hard to do,) and to look omniscient on strategic issues (a much more difficult task) while furthering his political purposes (to return to power in Britain and retain his influence with America.) He won the cooperation of the British government doing this (a central role being played by the Cabinet Secretary, Norman Brook,) as gradually the government saw Churchill's memoirs become Britain's "official history" of WWII.
   
   Did Churchill, at advanced age and as leader of the Conservative Party or Prime Minister, actually write the book? Churchill was, after all, a professional writer. He had written a monumental history of World War I (Arthur Balfour is said to have remarked, "Winston has written a great book about himself and called it The World Crisis.") Churchill had his war-time memos and letters bound monthly. These provided the "backbone" of his history. Churchill employed a team of writer/editors, including academics and former military officers, to put these into shape, research ancillary topics, and in many cases to write first drafts of chapters. The "Syndicate" was enormously productive, accomplishing this task faster than any single writer could hope to do it. (Reynolds notes that Eden had no such assistance and that his memoirs, appearing years later, were a mere historical footnote.) Still, Churchill gave the book his close editing attention and wrote crucial sections on his war time meetings with Roosevelt, Stalin and DeGaulle. One of the Syndicate was later asked about authorship of the series. He replied that a master chef is not expected to chop the lettuce. Churchill won the Nobel Prize for Literature; he was disappointed, he wanted the Nobel Prize for Peace.
   
   Did Churchill get it right?
   
   Revisionists (e.g., Charmley) argue that Churchill sold out Britain to the U.S. and that Britain should have arrested its decline through a negotiated peace with Germany. Can one really take this argument seriously? Hitler was a monster and any negotiated peace with him would have been a monstrosity. I believe Churchill's history lesson against appeasement has stood the test of time. No effort has been successful, in my view, to restore the tattered reputations of the Prime Ministers who preceded him, Baldwin and Chamberlain. No sensible historian has ever explained how a negotiated peace with Hitler would have been in Britain's, let alone Western Civilization's, interests.
   
   Churchill succeeded in making the Mediterranean a major theatre of operations and in trying to use Italy as a springboard to operations in the Balkans and Eastern Europe. Certainly his efforts in this direction are problematic. General Marshall was right in insisting on a direct cross-channel invasion at Normandy. Churchill's history, as previously noted, creates a bit of a mirage here, and doesn't tell the full story of the Anglo-American disharmony over planning Overlord.
   
   Lastly, by emphasizing operations on the Western Front, Churchill fails to credit the Russians. Far more divisions were employed by Hitler against Russia than against the British, Canadians and Americans. Stalingrad gets only a few paragraphs and other major battles, such as Kursk, receive only a summary treatment. A fairer view of the European theatre of operations would give much more weight to the Eastern front than Churchill chose to.
   
   Reynolds is a sparkling writer (he refers to Churchill's "iron whim") and this is a first-rate book. Churchill fans, of whom I am one, will devour it, but those not familiar with the broad outlines of the war (or Churchill) may find the going tougher. At the end, Churchill appears to be much more calculating, deliberate and even devious than the popular image. (He refused to put word to paper until his tax advisers figured out how to avoid Britain's then-ruinous income tax.) But he pulled off a marvelous feat. He not only won the war (or at least, prevented it from being lost,) but won the minds of future readers by shaping our view of the war. Our admiration grows.



5. This is an intereting book, full of things I did not know about Churchill and his long history of WWII.
   
   I admire Churchill, and always will. Reynolds' book proves he was human.
   
   There are many aspects of the Churchill WWII history I had not realized. Among them are:
   
   1) He did not write it all himself. Many sections were written by others.
   
   2) He could have been accused of plagarism by Samuel Elliot Morrison. Sections dealing with the war in the Pacific came straight from Morrison, and Morrison was nice enough to ask for an attribution. He could have made things ugly.
   
   3)Churchill used the books to burnish his image. Parts of letters and memos were deleated in writing the history. Churchill did not want the truth to emerge.
   
   4) Churchill used the history to blame others for mistakes he made. This is not a real surprise, and part of it went back to earlier disagreements.
   
   5) Lord Mountbatten was not the wonderful military leader the image makers created. In fact, he was behind the Dieppe fiasco, and his later leadership was of little relevance. But damn, he did look good in that white uniform, and those royal connections hardly hurt.
   
   6) Churchill used the books to help him regain political office. Hardly against the law for a politician.
   
   I did not come away from Reynolds' book thinking more of Churchill. But I don't think less of him. He was human, and was faced with a task which would boggle the average mind. Few people could have achieved the things he did. He was remarkable.
   
   I still think of his leadership, and his ability to inspire the British to hang on, fight on, and "never surrender." When one considers his overall achievement, his petty faults, and personal foibles don't matter all that much. God knows FDR had them as well. All leaders have them. Churchill's are easy to understand.
   
   At any rate, Reynolds wrote a book which is worth the time and effort. There are some hidden gems of information (Churchill felt that when life ended, it would be like "black velvet," or sinking into non-existence). There are facts about the war that are new, and interesting. Its a good book, and serves a purpose for fans of Churchill, or those interested in the writing of a huge history.

No comments about By the Waters of Liverpool.

2 comments about My Fight for Irish Freedom.

1. Most certainly one of the best books pertaining to the troubles from 1916-1922 to have survived over the years.
   Dan Breen in great detail describes his ascendancy to the top rung of the organization then known as the Irish volunteers (Later the IRA) in his native county Tipperary and the ensuing life on the run, the inevitable price to be paid for his part in the Soloheadbed Ambush in 1919, which arguably launched the Anglo-Irish War. His description of some of the leading characters of the day, most notably Michael Collins and Eamon de Valera, are as valuable as his tragic insights into the Civil War following the Peace Treaty of 1921, including his tireless efforts to bring peace between both the Free State and the Republicans.
   I have an extensive library that includes masterpieces by Ernie O'Malley, Tom Barry, and Pat Deasy, among others, but I still believe this might be the best account yet, always worth re-reading.



2. This is a good book and helps you understand much of how the Irish war for independence was gotten off the ground. For those interested in this period in Irish history it offers a unique insight from a hero of epic proportions. Some scenes from the book sound like they belong in a Hollywood script more than a true historic account and yet, that is what this book truly is. A must read for those interested in the struggle for Irish freedom.

3 comments about My Century (New York Review Books Classics).

1. Though it is only one man's view, the book provides a good explanation for why communism never took off in popularity in Poland like it did in Russia. An interesting account of the political currents in independent Poland between the world wars. Also an interesting account of life in the gulags and the places people scattered to, like Khazikstan, when World War II broke out. There must be countless stories like this one, that will never be heard about. I also very much liked Milosz's Legends of Modernity, and Wat's experience truly augmented that read.



2. Aleksander Wat created this exceptional memoir solely by talking to Czeslaw Milosz during one year in Berkeley in the sixties. The memories of Wat (at that time already ill and very depressed) together with questions put to him by Milosz, a Nobel Prize winning poet and novelist, formed a unique book (in Poland circulated illegally for a long time and extremely popular).
   
   Both Wat and Milosz went through the communist system and opposed it at the end, but Milosz early on chose emigration, leaving Poland initially for France and then for the US, while Wat, initially believing in The Party and the power of the working class, suffered the full impact of the machine. He tells the story of his enthusiastic youth, describes his fellow poets and writers, then moves on to his arrest and moving through Soviet prisons, without a trial for a long time, recalling other inmates and their stories, the methods for survival, the thoughts and torments. Then, finally moved to the work camp, he depicts in acute detail the life of the families and their struggle for sanity.
   
   The New York Review of Books edition contains also the memoir of Ola (Paulina) Wat, Aleksander's wife, who supported him throughout his ordeal.
   
   Although there are many books of experiences of the communist camps and especially the tortures of the intellectuals, who were torn between the idea of communism and its soon obvious wrong, every witness has eyes of their own and Wat, with his Jewish background and the soul of a Polish artist, makes his own, original statement.



3. Andre Malraux wrote that only three books -- Robinson Crusoe, Don Quixote and The Idiot--retained their truth for those who had seen prisons and concentration camps (see: Les Noys de l'Altenburg (Paris 1948)). It's an odd remark--what did he mean, "seen"? Suffered in? Or watched newsreel footage on the History Channel? One cannot escape the conviction that Malraux is trying to hype the aroma of glamour around his own life.

   But this is a distraction. The question is: I wonder what he thinks of the extraordinary array of "witness literature" from Europe beginning, perhaps, with Dostoevsky's "House of the Dead" and ending (one may hope?) with Solzhenitsyn's "Gulag Archipelago."

   In this chorus, Aleksander Wat's "My Century" stands as a luminous example. Wat was a Pole: Jewish by background but at last a convert to Christianity. He was a poet and a "literary person" before and after World War II. Along the way, he spent time in 13 (or was it 14?) different prisons, all simply for being who he was."

   His "memoir" is not precisely something he "wrote." Wat spent the year 1964-5 in Berkeley. There he fell in with Czeslaw Milosz, a great poet in his own right. Largely with the encouragement of Milosz, he "dictated" his story in a series of interviews which have been somewhat recast for this book. It's just as harrowing as you would expect it to be it has its uplifting side, driven by Wat's amazing inner resouurces: one thing about a good education, it gives you stuff to think about in Prison. And even at the worst, his sense of humor does not fail him. He recounts the story of the citizens of Bukhara, who surrendered to Ghengis Khan--only to have Ghengis Khan order their massacre. As Ghengis Khan explained to the elders:

   "You must have sinned greatly against God if he sent Ghengis Khan down on you!"

   Aside from Wat's own story, the NYRB edition includes an astonishing narrative by his wife, recounting a particularly dreadful chapter in her own prison years.

   There is a promising-looking biography by Tomas Venclova, but I haven't read it. Wat died in 1967, I believe (though I can't seem to pin this down) a suicide.

2 comments about Amma: The Life and Words of Amy Carmichael.

1. Some disconnected thoughts about this book (forgive my scatteredness):
   It takes a fairly literary modern mind to enjoy Amy's original books. She was a Victorian-era Irishwoman, after all, and-- well, how many Victorian religious writings do we read with ease? She's an amazing woman, but her writing's a little dense for most of us today. This book is still pretty dense-- but it does a great job of relating her writings to modern life (via the author's own reflections) while still presenting a very large amount of Amy's own original thoughts and poems. The result is an easier-to-read Amy Carmichael sourcebook that works both as a cover-to-cover and as a reference read.

   Skoglund groups Amy's writing topically by chapter rather than chronologically; this is not exactly a biographical book. If you open it looking for a strong plot, you'll be disappointed. However, if you open it looking for a fresh treatment of Amy's writing that enables you to access her wisdom on an array of subjects (and return to applicable chapters as you need her bracing words of encouragement), you will be delighted.

   I've read Eliot's biography and enjoyed it, but this is the one I pull out when I'm looking for something I remembered Amy saying. It's much more full of Amy's own words.




2. Amma was an amazing woman - this book deals with the timeless struggles of single missionary women in a way that is both inspiring and genuine. She speaks with honesty, but focuses constantly on God. A great book that shows all sides of the missionary life - the day to day struggles, and also the spectacular triumphs that come from years of seeking the Lord.

5 comments about Queen Victoria's Family: A Century of Photographs.

1. excellent photographs of collection of royal family of england ,from1840-1940.some of the pictures i've seen before ,but there are alot of new one's not seen before.



2. This is an excellent resource as well as enjoyable reading and viewing. Queen Victoria had a large, illustrious family. This book not only humanizes and personalizes the many family members, it also helps to make sense of the extended family connections - particularly with the included family trees in the back of the book.
   
   I have perused through this book many times, and have recently given one to a friend, who absolutely loved it. This is not a history book that will just sit on a shelf. It is a required addition to anyone interested in the history of Queen Victoria and the Eurpoean monarchies.



3. Absolutely remarkable. Charlotte Zeepvat takes the reader into the lives of Queen Victoria and her family with the amazing photographs, both candid and formal. The pictures are rare. They are well organized and have excellent captions. Zeepvat is a great writer/historian and I recommend her books to all.



4. There are certain photos that I simply expect to see when perusing volumes about European royalty. However, upon receiving Zeepvat's book, I was thrilled to find so many rarely seen photos of some of the more obscure descendants of the "Grandmother of Europe." If you're a royalty buff like I am, you can spend hours immersed in this marvelous book and its detailed family trees.



5. for those interested in royalty. While some of these photos can be found in many different books, some of them I've seen for the first time. Queen Victoria's decendants are so numerous and belong to so many different royal houses. Definitely a worthwhile purchase!

1 comments about Private Battles: Our Intimate Diaries: How They Almost Defeated Us.

1. I got all three of the books in this series for my mom. She was born and raised in England and lived through the war there. This was fascinating for her and now I am reading them. It gives a wonderful window into the lives of several individuals who are recording diaries as they live day to day through the war. My mom loved comparing their experiences to hers and their reactions to hers. At the end they tell you what happened since that time to each of the characters. These books are only a tiny portion of the diaries that were saved from this time but they are enthralling to read. I hope they publish more of them.

2 comments about Stalin: Revolutionary in an Era of War (European History in Perspective).

1. Kevin McDermott's book on Stalin, in a general introductory series called "European History in Perspective", is probably the best short overview of all the issues in historical scholarship relating to Stalin and Stalinism in print at this time. Eminently readable, McDermott analyzes the person and policies of Stalin as well as his social context and the international politics of the time, and does so in a particularly balanced manner which takes all the controversy into account. Stalin is one of the most controversial politicians of all time perhaps, and the many different currents in both historical and political discussions about his person and legacy range from the absolutely adoring to frothing hatred, so it is by no means a small feat to have succeeded in giving a good impression of the controversy over the most important issues in Stalin scholarship as well as giving a balanced summary of the weight of evidence.
   
   McDermott is certainly no fan of Stalin, but is not a rabid Cold Warrior either. Contrary to some authors, he does not diminish the achievements of the USSR during Stalin's reign, while at the same time always acknowledging the effects, mostly deleterious, his policies had on the workers and peasants on whose behalf they were (at least nominally) undertaken. McDermott correctly analyzes Stalin's policies as demanding huge sacrifices of his people in exchange for extremely rapid industrialization and modernization, combined with a despotic personal tyranny of Stalin which could bear no disagreement or dissent of any kind. Of course the question whether Stalin, overall, was historically 'worth it' as well as the question what a different leader, say Trotsky or Bukharin, would have done can never be wholly answered, but McDermott certainly gives an excellent overview of all the things one would need to consider to give an opinion on those questions. And the questions are of crucial importance, especially to socialists.
   
   The book's organization is thematic, such that every chapter discusses an 'aspect' of Stalin: Stalin as modernizer, Stalin as leader in wartime, Stalin as follower of Lenin (or not), Stalin as dictator, and so on. But he maintains a broad chronological order both within and through these chapters as well, making the whole of Stalin's reign quite easy to grasp, especially for the interested layman. Of course one can have differing opinions on some of McDermott's conclusions, such as the degree to which he (following Service) considers Stalin to be a 'mainstream' Leninist, but McDermott relies in every topic mainly on the modern scholarship of people like Fitzpatrick, Lewin, and Khlevniuk, which greatly enhances the value of this work. Some might complain that he still gives too much credence to people like Courtois and Conquest, but since their Cold War professional anti-communism has strongly shaped popular views of Stalin, this is probably a good decision for an introductory work. Of special interest is also McDermott's chapter on Stalin's relations with the Comintern, which is regrettably short; very little has been written on this subject of great importance to the history of socialism. Fortunately, McDermott has written a monograph on the subject: Comintern, The: History of International Communism from Lenin to Stalin. I can much recommend this book to people who are interested in learning who Stalin was and what he did, without wanting to read anything too specialized or inaccessible.



2. Stalin's single purpose was, as Professor Richard Overy has noted, "to preserve and enlarge the revolution and the state that represented it." His policies were forged in war and revolution. How could World War One's slaughter of Russians be stopped? How could the counter-revolutionary war of 1917-21 be defeated? How could a feudal peasant society be modernised? How could the kulaks be defeated? How could the fifth column linked to Hitler be defeated? How could Hitler's invasion be defeated? How could the Soviet Union be rebuilt after the war's devastation? Capitalism caused all these problems; liberalism compounded them. Stalin's answer was class war - war against the warmongers. How else could Russia have survived these lethal threats?
   
   So, without a capitalist class, without profits from exploiting people in other countries, without investment by foreign firms, and without foreign aid, the Soviet people built an economy that transformed their country from the backward semi-colonial land of the tsars into the world's second industrial, scientific and military power. They collectivised agriculture and created an iron and steel industry, tractors, machine tools, agricultural machinery and aircraft. They brought electricity to the whole country and built coal and oil industries. There was no unemployment, and people had free housing, free education and free health care: children got free vitamins. The late Lord Bullock, not the friendliest witness, wrote, "the achievement of the Russian people on the economic front, under the Soviet system and Stalin's leadership, was remarkable."
   
   The supreme test was the Second World War. Soviet forces inflicted 90% of Nazi Germany's military casualties. As Albert Seaton wrote of Stalin, "he must be allowed credit for the amazing successes of 1944", which are "among the most outstanding in the world's military history."
   
   General Alan Brooke, Chief of the Imperial General Staff, judged that Stalin had `a military brain of the very highest order'. The veteran American diplomat Averell Harriman wrote of Stalin's "high intelligence, that fantastic grasp of detail, his shrewdness and the surprising human sensitivity that he was capable of showing, at least in the war years. I found him better informed than Roosevelt, more realistic than Churchill, in some ways the most effective of the war leaders." Henri Michel, the French historian of the war, wrote, "The Soviet victory was the Red Army's victory, but it was also the victory of the Soviet economy and of the Bolshevik regime ... finally, this victory was Stalin's victory."
   
   As they say in Russia, Stalin found the country a wreck and left it a superpower; Gorbachev found it a superpower and left it a wreck. Without Stalin's leadership of the Soviet Union, Hitler could have defeated the Soviet Union, then occupied Britain and won the war, so we owe Stalin and the Soviet people a huge debt.

No comments about Kennedy in Berlin (Publications of the German Historical Institute).