dannyklepac

I recently read this book over a holiday break. Jonathan Fenby is a good writer and keeps you engaged with his subject matter, De Gaulle throughout the book.

If I had one criticism of the book is that he could have done more to put De Gaulle in the context of his times. The France of today is one of the most secular societies in Europe yet was once known as the Eldest Daughter of the Church. Fenby tells us about De Gaulle’s Catholicism in passing and treats it almost as an assumed fact.

It would have provided better context to the book to provide more explanation of the France in the interwar years 1919-1940 and the societal forces at play.

Other than this criticism the book is excellent dealing with De Gaulle’s relationship with Petain (pre-dating World War I) and the machinations and intrigues of the French elite coming to terms with the defeat of 1940. The chapters dealing with DeGaulle’s return to power in 1958 on the back of dealing with the Algerian Crisis and the skillful way that he extricated France from Algeria over a period of years are also excellent.

The twilight years, ie the 1968 protests up to DeGaulle’s defeat in a referendum and subsequent resignation in 1969 could also have done with more context. Was it just a case that DeGaulle was a man whose time had passed? Fenby doesn’t really explore the generational difference between Pompidou (his successor) and DeGaulle.

All in a good book and well worth a read – I rated it 8 out of 10.

Martin Sixsmith is a BBC journalist who has a long involvement with Russia both as a student and subsequently as a correspondent.

His book is certainly a good categorical history of Russia, ranging over the almost legendary Kievan Rus to Vladimir Putin and for the reader who has limited knowledge of Russia he certainly ranges over key personalities, dates and facts so that the uninformed reader could claim to be substantially more informed at the end of the book. As one would expect from a journalist the prose is also highly readable.

For those with an existing grounding in the topic the book will not really add to your knowledge or provide any new insights. Sixsmith largely adopts what is contemporary analysis – the alternating conservative/slavophile/strong state versus western/moderniser perspective of Russian history to explain his narrative. He really doesnt go beyond that which is a shame. By way of example he identifies Vladimir Putin as part of the autocrat tradition of Russia yet the complexity of individuals isnt really fairly assessed by a simplistic black/white good/bad analysis of individuals as being either modernisers or conservatives.

This book is the story of the end of the Cold War starting from approximately the last days of Brezhnev in the Soviet Union up to the fall of Gorbachev in 1991. It provides the reader with useful insights into the thinking of both Gorbachev from the Soviet side and firstly Ronald Reagan and then George Bush senior from the American side.

It provided a thoughtful insight into how much Gorbachev and Reagan were both leaders acting outside the dominant mindset or frame of reference in their respective governments, and how much there own personal beliefs and values made the succesful and safe winding down of the Cold War possible. It also explained the logistics and planning that went into the concept of retaliatory nuclear strike – the dead hand of the title, that is to say that even if the Soviet leadership in Moscow was wiped out a semi-automated response would be possible.

The argument of the book is that Gorbachev tried to play off rival reform and hardline factions and that his failure to embrace democracy led to his downfall. I thought this was a harsh judgement given the nature of Soviet power and rule and that it was Gorbachev who made democratisation possible.

The book also fails to draw out the failures of the Bush and Clinton administrations to make the most of the opportunities presented by the end of the Cold War, it references the timidity and caution of US policy makers in relation to Russia but not the obvious consequences of today as seen in the sliloviki regime of Putin.

One failing of the book was the obsession with detailing the Soviet biological weapons program – it occupied a substantial portion of the book but was out of place in the context of the broader discussion of nuclear arms control -probably a 3rd of the book was taken up with this topic.

This was one of the first books I have purchased in electronic format – Kindle. On that score the jury is still out.

I guess for every reader there is a fascination about the secret service – men in suits with dark sunglasses and earpieces, I too confess to this fascination hence the purchase. It was a disappointment – essentially the book is an alternating collection of war stories about how the private president differed from the public figure with a medium size dose of how the public figure chose to live their life. For those who are interested the war stories go from Kennedy to Obama.

These war stories were alternated with aspects of the work of the secret service such as investigating threats to the president. The author didnt really provide any critical analysis or sifting of the war stories. This book is really gossip masquerading as something more substantial. Best avoided.

Vale Greg Hogan and Vinnies.