What do you think?
Rate this book
Three Days at the Brink
“I not put this extraordinary book down. Three Days at the Brink is a masterpiece: elegantly written, brilliantly conceived, and impeccably researched. This book is destined to be a classic!” Jay Winik, New York Times bestselling author
From the #1 bestselling author and award-winning anchor of Special Report with Bret Baier, comes the gripping lost history of the Tehran Conference, where FDR, Churchill, and Stalin plotted D-Day and the Second World War’s endgame. With the fate of World War II in doubt and rumors of a Nazi assassination plot swirling, Franklin Roosevelt risked everything at a clandestine meeting that would change the course of history.
November 1943: The Nazis and their Axis allies controlled nearly the entire European continent. Japan dominated the Pacific. Allied successes at Sicily and Guadalcanal had gained them modest ground but at an extraordinary cost. On the Eastern Front, the Soviet Red Army had been bled white. The path of history walked a knife’s edge.
That same month a daring gambit was hatched that would alter everything. The "Big Three"—Franklin D. Roosevelt, Winston Churchill, and Joseph Stalin—secretly met for the first time to chart a strategy for defeating Adolf Hitler. Over three days in Tehran, Iran, this trio—strange bedfellows united by their mutual responsibility as heads of the Allied powers—made essential decisions that would direct the final years of the war and its aftermath. Meanwhile, looming over the covert meeting was the possible threat of a Nazi assassination plot, code-named Operation Long Jump.
Before they left Tehran, the three leaders agreed to open a second front in the West, spearheaded by Operation Overload and the D-Day invasion of France at Normandy the following June. They also discussed what might come after the war, including dividing Germany and establishing the United Nations—plans that laid the groundwork for the postwar world order and the Cold War.
Bestselling author and Fox News Channel anchor Bret Baier’s new epic history, Three Days at the Brink, centers on these crucial days in Tehran, the medieval Persian city on the edge of the desert. Baier makes clear the importance of Roosevelt, who stood apart as the sole leader of a democracy, recognizing him as the lead strategist for the globe’s future—the one man who could ultimately allow or deny the others their place in history.
With new details discovered in rarely seen transcripts, oral histories, and declassified State Department and presidential documents from the Franklin D. Roosevelt Library, Baier illuminates the complex character of Roosevelt, revealing a man who grew into his role and accepted the greatest challenge any American president since Lincoln had faced.
From the #1 bestselling author and award-winning anchor of Special Report with Bret Baier, comes the gripping lost history of the Tehran Conference, where FDR, Churchill, and Stalin plotted D-Day and the Second World War’s endgame. With the fate of World War II in doubt and rumors of a Nazi assassination plot swirling, Franklin Roosevelt risked everything at a clandestine meeting that would change the course of history.
November 1943: The Nazis and their Axis allies controlled nearly the entire European continent. Japan dominated the Pacific. Allied successes at Sicily and Guadalcanal had gained them modest ground but at an extraordinary cost. On the Eastern Front, the Soviet Red Army had been bled white. The path of history walked a knife’s edge.
That same month a daring gambit was hatched that would alter everything. The "Big Three"—Franklin D. Roosevelt, Winston Churchill, and Joseph Stalin—secretly met for the first time to chart a strategy for defeating Adolf Hitler. Over three days in Tehran, Iran, this trio—strange bedfellows united by their mutual responsibility as heads of the Allied powers—made essential decisions that would direct the final years of the war and its aftermath. Meanwhile, looming over the covert meeting was the possible threat of a Nazi assassination plot, code-named Operation Long Jump.
Before they left Tehran, the three leaders agreed to open a second front in the West, spearheaded by Operation Overload and the D-Day invasion of France at Normandy the following June. They also discussed what might come after the war, including dividing Germany and establishing the United Nations—plans that laid the groundwork for the postwar world order and the Cold War.
Bestselling author and Fox News Channel anchor Bret Baier’s new epic history, Three Days at the Brink, centers on these crucial days in Tehran, the medieval Persian city on the edge of the desert. Baier makes clear the importance of Roosevelt, who stood apart as the sole leader of a democracy, recognizing him as the lead strategist for the globe’s future—the one man who could ultimately allow or deny the others their place in history.
With new details discovered in rarely seen transcripts, oral histories, and declassified State Department and presidential documents from the Franklin D. Roosevelt Library, Baier illuminates the complex character of Roosevelt, revealing a man who grew into his role and accepted the greatest challenge any American president since Lincoln had faced.
434 pages, Hardcover
First published October 22, 2019
968 people are currently reading
3358 people want to read
About the author
Bret Baier
13 books204 followersWilliam Bret Baier is an American journalist and the host of Special Report with Bret Baier on the Fox News Channel and the chief political anchor for Fox. He previously worked as the network's Chief White House Correspondent and Pentagon correspondent.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 195 reviews
August 18, 2022
Very readable and well-researched, this book was a brisk read. It did not seem very long, although it's about 400 pages. I skimmed through much of it, especially the first third of it. Although the focus is supposed to be on the Tehran Conference of the Big Three in late 1943, that event only takes up about 60 pages; it's Part 3 of the book.
Part 1 is basically a bio of FDR, which is the part I breezed through, already knowing much of the info there. In fact, I could have just skipped over it. But it is good to be reminded of FDR's battle to overcome polio. Having faced the adversity of his paralysis, as Baier writes, it made him "a better man." Roosevelt chose not to be crippled by polio. You could say, in his mind, he was not handicapped in any way. You could also say he was well-prepared by his battle to overcome his own personal adversity to handle the devastating crises of the Great Depression and the Second World War.
Part 2 gets us through FDR's presidency in the 1930s into WWII. One thing that the author emphasizes is the special relationship which developed between Roosevelt and Churchill. Knowing that he had support from FDR helped Churchill to hold on against Hitler during the Blitz. Another British leader might have been all too willing to negotiate peace with Hitler, but I believe Churchill never considered it. I believe he was counting on American help coming, at some point... It would take the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor to bring the Americans fully into the war. The two men, the British prime minister and the U.S. president, would be able to work closely together to win final victory, despite their disagreements...
Part 3 brings in Stalin. I'm not convinced that Tehran was as decisive as Baier makes it out to be. The agreement to go ahead with the amphibious invasion on the coast of France could have been decided without the conference. The gamble at Tehran, as Baier calls it, was that FDR was hoping to establish a personal relationship with Stalin, as he had with Churchill. As we know, it was not to be. Was it worth it for FDR to have even tried? The trips to and from Tehran and Yalta surely were exhausting and I'm certain hastened his death. FDR would not live to see the postwar world. Truman would be in charge. Would things have been different if FDR had lived longer?
The book ends with the end of the war and FDR's death--and the Cold War getting underway.
I would have liked much more detail on the Tehran Conference itself and the period of the war in 1943 leading up to the conference. To me, the book was a little too superficial and I would have liked more analysis. But that's not the point of the book. Baier wants to tell a good story and that he does. I give this book a solid 3 stars.
I have to mention that I found a glaring mistake, which jumped out at me as I was reading and I had to stop and say, "huh?" On pg. 214, Baier writes about Churchill making a trip to Washington following Pearl Harbor. He set off on the British battleship HMS "Duke of York." To quote the author," 'The Prince of Wales,' the ship that had carried Churchill to his meeting in Newfoundland, was not available for duty. It had been sunk by Japanese torpedoes as it was heading to Singapore in late October." If Japan had sunk a British warship in October, 1941, I think the British would have declared war on Japan at that time! "The Prince of Wales" was sunk by the Japanese on December 10, 1941, after the attack on Pearl Harbor and the American and British declarations of war on the Japanese Empire...
The problem with catching a mistake like this leads me to wonder how many other mistakes there were which I didn't catch!
Part 1 is basically a bio of FDR, which is the part I breezed through, already knowing much of the info there. In fact, I could have just skipped over it. But it is good to be reminded of FDR's battle to overcome polio. Having faced the adversity of his paralysis, as Baier writes, it made him "a better man." Roosevelt chose not to be crippled by polio. You could say, in his mind, he was not handicapped in any way. You could also say he was well-prepared by his battle to overcome his own personal adversity to handle the devastating crises of the Great Depression and the Second World War.
Part 2 gets us through FDR's presidency in the 1930s into WWII. One thing that the author emphasizes is the special relationship which developed between Roosevelt and Churchill. Knowing that he had support from FDR helped Churchill to hold on against Hitler during the Blitz. Another British leader might have been all too willing to negotiate peace with Hitler, but I believe Churchill never considered it. I believe he was counting on American help coming, at some point... It would take the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor to bring the Americans fully into the war. The two men, the British prime minister and the U.S. president, would be able to work closely together to win final victory, despite their disagreements...
Part 3 brings in Stalin. I'm not convinced that Tehran was as decisive as Baier makes it out to be. The agreement to go ahead with the amphibious invasion on the coast of France could have been decided without the conference. The gamble at Tehran, as Baier calls it, was that FDR was hoping to establish a personal relationship with Stalin, as he had with Churchill. As we know, it was not to be. Was it worth it for FDR to have even tried? The trips to and from Tehran and Yalta surely were exhausting and I'm certain hastened his death. FDR would not live to see the postwar world. Truman would be in charge. Would things have been different if FDR had lived longer?
The book ends with the end of the war and FDR's death--and the Cold War getting underway.
I would have liked much more detail on the Tehran Conference itself and the period of the war in 1943 leading up to the conference. To me, the book was a little too superficial and I would have liked more analysis. But that's not the point of the book. Baier wants to tell a good story and that he does. I give this book a solid 3 stars.
I have to mention that I found a glaring mistake, which jumped out at me as I was reading and I had to stop and say, "huh?" On pg. 214, Baier writes about Churchill making a trip to Washington following Pearl Harbor. He set off on the British battleship HMS "Duke of York." To quote the author," 'The Prince of Wales,' the ship that had carried Churchill to his meeting in Newfoundland, was not available for duty. It had been sunk by Japanese torpedoes as it was heading to Singapore in late October." If Japan had sunk a British warship in October, 1941, I think the British would have declared war on Japan at that time! "The Prince of Wales" was sunk by the Japanese on December 10, 1941, after the attack on Pearl Harbor and the American and British declarations of war on the Japanese Empire...
The problem with catching a mistake like this leads me to wonder how many other mistakes there were which I didn't catch!
August 18, 2019
Full disclosure, I received an advance reader's edition from Goodread's book giveaway program in exchange for a review of the book. Having just finished Jean Edward Smith's excellent FDR bio, I looked forward to Baier's and Whitney's take on the Tehran conference. I couldn't have been more disappointed. I didn't care for Baier's style. His tendency to put his "personal journalist's spin" on the facts of the story were a distraction and obvious throughout. Not cool. Then he opened and closed the book bloviating about Trump. The whole final chapter was about Trump and Kim with a little Putin thrown in for flavor. The attempt to make grand comparisons between FDR and Trump are laughable. Baier gets points for shameless kissing-up but not honest historical perspective. Given the volumes that have written about FDR and WWII don't waste your time on this one.
January 12, 2020
I found this to be an excellent read and a great follow up to his other two books. Having just finished a book about the Pacific war this filled in a lot of gaps. I certainly continue to be impressed with how Roosevelt conducted the diplomatic side of the war. Also, knowing how he idolized his cousin Teddy lifted him in my estimation. I have always wondered what would have been the result for our nation if Theodore had been the four term president. He would have certainly lived longer, but the Smithsonian Natural History Museum would be different.
November 20, 2019
n Three Days at the Brink, journalist Bret Baier and his coauthor purport to zero in on the three-day period late in 1943 when FDR met Winston Churchill and Josef Stalin at the Tehran Conference. The book does include an account of those consequential three days — days “which might have birthed the Cold War [and] were also the turning point in the hot war.” However, the first half of the book is an abbreviated biography of Franklin Roosevelt, and Baier’s account of the Tehran Conference is followed by a lengthy chapter on the early days of the Cold War—as well as an epilogue of sorts that attempts to draw a parallel with Donald Trump’s high-stakes meetings with Kim Jong Un. In other words, the book doesn’t justify its title, and the ending veers far off course.
Was the Tehran Conference the turning point in World War II?
As any student of World War II is fully aware, the three Allied leaders resolved to launch Operation Overlord (the Normandy invasion) at the Tehran Conference (November 28 – December 1, 1943). There, FDR joined Stalin in pressuring Churchill to accede to the invasion and finally got his way. But Baier and Whitney describe the encounter as “FDR’s daring gamble.” The gamble, it turns out, wasn’t the commitment to Overlord. It was FDR’s resolve to cozy up to Stalin at the risk of alienating his close friend, Winston Churchill. “Courting the Soviet leader was high on Roosevelt’s list of priorities,” Baier and Courtney write. “He needed him, even if their closeness hurt Churchill’s pride.” He was gambling that Churchill would ultimately forgive him, and it was a gamble that paid off. Maybe. But such behavior was typical of FDR, who was one of the most gifted manipulators ever to set foot in the Oval Office.
Here’s how the authors set the scene: “After more than four years of fighting, the free world was at the brink. Adolf Hitler’s armies had surged across western Europe and into the Soviet Union and the Mediterranean. The Allies had fought hard, and in the last year they had scored important victories at the edges of Axis-controlled territory: a successful campaign in North Africa; inroads into southern Italy, where Benito Mussolini’s government had collapsed; and a brutal victory in Stalingrad. In the Pacific theater, Allied victories at Midway and Guadalcanal had created positive momentum. But the successes felt piecemeal in the larger scheme of things.”
For the Germans and Japanese, Tehran was not the turning point in World War II
While all this is true, historians and other journalists have made clear that the German general staff and many civilian Nazi leaders were well aware by late 1943 that Germany was losing the war. And even though the fanatical Japanese leadership was oblivious to the obvious, victory in the Pacific was only a matter of time as well. In other words, calling the Tehran Conference the meeting that won the war is a stretch at best.
About the authors
Bret Baier is the chief political anchor for the Fox News Channel and hosts his own show on the network. Three Days at the Brink is the third of his books examining the lives of American Presidents at historical turning points. Previous volumes spotlighted Dwight Eisenhower and Ronald Reagan. Baier describes his coauthor, Catherine Whitney, as “the New York Times bestselling coauthor of more than fifty books.”
Was the Tehran Conference the turning point in World War II?
As any student of World War II is fully aware, the three Allied leaders resolved to launch Operation Overlord (the Normandy invasion) at the Tehran Conference (November 28 – December 1, 1943). There, FDR joined Stalin in pressuring Churchill to accede to the invasion and finally got his way. But Baier and Whitney describe the encounter as “FDR’s daring gamble.” The gamble, it turns out, wasn’t the commitment to Overlord. It was FDR’s resolve to cozy up to Stalin at the risk of alienating his close friend, Winston Churchill. “Courting the Soviet leader was high on Roosevelt’s list of priorities,” Baier and Courtney write. “He needed him, even if their closeness hurt Churchill’s pride.” He was gambling that Churchill would ultimately forgive him, and it was a gamble that paid off. Maybe. But such behavior was typical of FDR, who was one of the most gifted manipulators ever to set foot in the Oval Office.
Here’s how the authors set the scene: “After more than four years of fighting, the free world was at the brink. Adolf Hitler’s armies had surged across western Europe and into the Soviet Union and the Mediterranean. The Allies had fought hard, and in the last year they had scored important victories at the edges of Axis-controlled territory: a successful campaign in North Africa; inroads into southern Italy, where Benito Mussolini’s government had collapsed; and a brutal victory in Stalingrad. In the Pacific theater, Allied victories at Midway and Guadalcanal had created positive momentum. But the successes felt piecemeal in the larger scheme of things.”
For the Germans and Japanese, Tehran was not the turning point in World War II
While all this is true, historians and other journalists have made clear that the German general staff and many civilian Nazi leaders were well aware by late 1943 that Germany was losing the war. And even though the fanatical Japanese leadership was oblivious to the obvious, victory in the Pacific was only a matter of time as well. In other words, calling the Tehran Conference the meeting that won the war is a stretch at best.
About the authors
Bret Baier is the chief political anchor for the Fox News Channel and hosts his own show on the network. Three Days at the Brink is the third of his books examining the lives of American Presidents at historical turning points. Previous volumes spotlighted Dwight Eisenhower and Ronald Reagan. Baier describes his coauthor, Catherine Whitney, as “the New York Times bestselling coauthor of more than fifty books.”
January 20, 2020
This was a well-written summary of the famous Tehran conference which took place near the end of 1943 between Churchill, Stalin and Roosevelt to determine the timing of the D-day landings and the course of the rest of WWII. It gives us a fly on the wall summary of the main protagonists and their behaviour and motivations. This event is preceded by a description of Roosevelt's life and presidency before the war, some of which I already knew from the excellent Ken Burns documentary on FDR which was featured on PBS several years ago. However, the description of the conference was riveting. (Imagine a conference today with Trump, Putin and Bojo!! How the mighty have fallen, some might say.) The detail and erudition of the author was impressive, as was this story. Baier is a conservative who worked for Fox news. Nothing wrong with that, except that at the end of the book,he actually compares Roosevelt with the Donald,which is rather like comparing Meryl Streep with Stormy Daniels. Good story and well done on the whole but this snowflake ain't melting.
January 9, 2020
I was a little disappointed, because I was expecting this book to be mostly about what happened at the Tehran conference and its consequences, possibly with some background information about FDR and the US political scene at the time. But pretty much the first third of the book was a biography of FDR, and could have been omitted without much if any impact on the discussion of the Tehran conference. I would have preferred a lot more about the conference and much less about, for example, FDR's extramarital activities. And of course I could have done without some of the modern political intrusions, although they didn't seem too bad in the main body of the book.
I was also surprised that certain things were left out of the book. For example, in a discussion of what brought the United States into World War 1, the Zimmerman telegraph was not mentioned. And the discussion of the misinformation campaign directed toward Germany before the Allied invasion of Sicily did not include anything about Operation Mincemeat.
In addition, I was surprised by this: "It had never before been US policy to obliterate the political systems of enemies, only to win the fight." (Page 252). Except that the Civil War did have as its goal the destruction of the Confederacy and its political systems. The fact that this wasn't mentioned at all seemed very strange to me.
However, I appreciated some of the historical political analysis, such as the discussions of why FDR didn't want to have any substantive discussions with Hoover before taking office and how the American political scene affected FDR's actions during the Tehran conference. I also found the discussion of the effects of the Tehran conference on future US negotiations and politics to be very interesting.
Also, "America first" is apparently nothing new, as the phrase was used during Coolidge's campaign.
I was also surprised that certain things were left out of the book. For example, in a discussion of what brought the United States into World War 1, the Zimmerman telegraph was not mentioned. And the discussion of the misinformation campaign directed toward Germany before the Allied invasion of Sicily did not include anything about Operation Mincemeat.
In addition, I was surprised by this: "It had never before been US policy to obliterate the political systems of enemies, only to win the fight." (Page 252). Except that the Civil War did have as its goal the destruction of the Confederacy and its political systems. The fact that this wasn't mentioned at all seemed very strange to me.
However, I appreciated some of the historical political analysis, such as the discussions of why FDR didn't want to have any substantive discussions with Hoover before taking office and how the American political scene affected FDR's actions during the Tehran conference. I also found the discussion of the effects of the Tehran conference on future US negotiations and politics to be very interesting.
Also, "America first" is apparently nothing new, as the phrase was used during Coolidge's campaign.
September 9, 2019
This book was very educational and a fascinating look at the history of World War II. Wish I had something like this available for me in grade school. I did not appreciate the authors opinions about Trump though.
June 4, 2020
“Like Eisenhower and Reagan, Roosevelt was a leader who transcended his political party to fulfill a higher purpose in the presidency.”
Though it borders on a hagiography, Three Days at the Brink brings modern readers an updated perspective on both our thirty-second president and the high-level decisions that determined the course of the post-World War II world.
“Circumstances required them to engage in the painful exercise of reaching agreement, with Roosevelt serving as the leader who would help them envision and cement a partnership that would win the war.”
But …
“After the war, [Soviet Minister of Foreign Affairs] Molotov would acknowledge that the second front clamor was mostly a ploy. The Russians knew as well as anyone that the Allies weren’t ready.”
Baier and most others credit the Tehran talks leading to victory over Hitler. I demur. By the time Churchill, Roosevelt and Stalin met at the end of 1943, Nazi Germany was doomed. Of course, neither side knew it yet. They had to proceed as if the war was in doubt. Failure to move as vigorously and wisely as they did might have cost millions more lives.
“There’s a uniquely American perception that as long as we’re talking, we’re making progress. Roosevelt thought so, too. It takes faith and hubris to think you can talk your way out of a global jam, negotiate with someone who shares none of your values, and gain a lasting consensus.”
Modern presidents have this myopia, bordering on arrogance, that if they can just look people in the eye, they can talk them into anything. Perhaps it’s the logical outcome of having been elected. It clearly is not so.
“You must master at the outset a simple but unalterable fact in modern foreign relations. When peace has been broken anywhere, the peace of all countries everywhere is in danger.” FDR
At Tehran and later at Yalta in 1945, Roosevelt gave away the farm. Churchill and Stalin knew it then; Roosevelt didn’t live long enough to know, though he may have suspected it. At those times and places, there was not much else Roosevelt could do: his history, world history, and the pressure of the war impelled him.
“In the end, Tehran had produced the declaration that had paved the way to the war’s end. It might be said that Tehran won the war but Yalta failed to secure the peace.”
Though it borders on a hagiography, Three Days at the Brink brings modern readers an updated perspective on both our thirty-second president and the high-level decisions that determined the course of the post-World War II world.
“Circumstances required them to engage in the painful exercise of reaching agreement, with Roosevelt serving as the leader who would help them envision and cement a partnership that would win the war.”
But …
“After the war, [Soviet Minister of Foreign Affairs] Molotov would acknowledge that the second front clamor was mostly a ploy. The Russians knew as well as anyone that the Allies weren’t ready.”
Baier and most others credit the Tehran talks leading to victory over Hitler. I demur. By the time Churchill, Roosevelt and Stalin met at the end of 1943, Nazi Germany was doomed. Of course, neither side knew it yet. They had to proceed as if the war was in doubt. Failure to move as vigorously and wisely as they did might have cost millions more lives.
“There’s a uniquely American perception that as long as we’re talking, we’re making progress. Roosevelt thought so, too. It takes faith and hubris to think you can talk your way out of a global jam, negotiate with someone who shares none of your values, and gain a lasting consensus.”
Modern presidents have this myopia, bordering on arrogance, that if they can just look people in the eye, they can talk them into anything. Perhaps it’s the logical outcome of having been elected. It clearly is not so.
“You must master at the outset a simple but unalterable fact in modern foreign relations. When peace has been broken anywhere, the peace of all countries everywhere is in danger.” FDR
At Tehran and later at Yalta in 1945, Roosevelt gave away the farm. Churchill and Stalin knew it then; Roosevelt didn’t live long enough to know, though he may have suspected it. At those times and places, there was not much else Roosevelt could do: his history, world history, and the pressure of the war impelled him.
“In the end, Tehran had produced the declaration that had paved the way to the war’s end. It might be said that Tehran won the war but Yalta failed to secure the peace.”
January 22, 2020
This was excellent. I rarely find a historical non fiction book that I can't put down but this was so well written and fast paced... I know the subject was FDR but sometimes I felt like Eleanor got judged in her small appearances in it. I want to read something about her next for balance. But the actual topic, amazing what mere mortals can come up with, not just the strategy of operation overlord but the responsibility of the future of the world... Incredible.
May 7, 2020
I enjoy Bret Baier's books. He relates what is happening to the current day events. He works as a White House reporter, so he has a lot of insight as to how history is shaping the current day or not. He tells historical information in a very story-like way, which makes it easy to consume. I also greatly enjoy him as a narrator. He's gone on my list of to-read authors and will stay there for some time.
March 18, 2021
I listened to the audio version of this book. This book is billed as an examination of the three day conference between three important leaders for The Allies during World War II. Taking place in Tehran, some historians see it as the turning point of World War II when Josef Stalin, Winston Churchill, and Franklin Delano Roosevelt decided to open a second front with a cross channel invasion into France. It has been debated if it actually was the turning point or not, but it was the first time all three top allied leaders met in person together.
The title is a little misleading as the book was really a mini FDR biography. Most of the first half of the book was dedicated to FDR from childhood to his rise to the presidency. I didn’t mind this as I haven’t read much about FDR. I thought the authors were very successful in painting the picture of the dynamic between the three leaders. At times the book tended to lean on a conservative perspective, but overall I thought it was kept to a minimum. The last chapter was odd and out of place as the authors compared Donald Trump and his dealings with Kim Jong Un to FDR’s dealings with Stalin. It didn’t make a ton of sense as to why this was put in the book and it didn’t ring true to me as I listened to the chapter.
Overall this was a solid look into the dynamics between the top leaders in the allies’ camp. I would just recommend skipping the last chapter as it is blatant partisan propping up of the sitting president when the book was written.
The title is a little misleading as the book was really a mini FDR biography. Most of the first half of the book was dedicated to FDR from childhood to his rise to the presidency. I didn’t mind this as I haven’t read much about FDR. I thought the authors were very successful in painting the picture of the dynamic between the three leaders. At times the book tended to lean on a conservative perspective, but overall I thought it was kept to a minimum. The last chapter was odd and out of place as the authors compared Donald Trump and his dealings with Kim Jong Un to FDR’s dealings with Stalin. It didn’t make a ton of sense as to why this was put in the book and it didn’t ring true to me as I listened to the chapter.
Overall this was a solid look into the dynamics between the top leaders in the allies’ camp. I would just recommend skipping the last chapter as it is blatant partisan propping up of the sitting president when the book was written.
April 19, 2020
This was a great inside look at the events that led up to D-Day and, eventually, to the end of World War II. While it focused mostly on Franklin D. Roosevelt, the reader got some insight into the roles that Winston Churchill and Joseph Stalin played. I wish I could talk to my dad about this book. I think he really would've enjoyed it and been able to provide some great insight into this period of time, which I know was one his favorites, as a person who really loved military history.
April 20, 2020
Another home run - enjoyed it maybe not nearly as much as Three Days In Moscow, but another well-written and researched account of the 1943 Tehran summit of the 3 Allied leaders, including an in depth look at FDR's character and political career leading up to WW2.
January 4, 2020
Excellent book by Bret Baier on the history of WWII and the relationships between the leaders of the three major Allied powers, the United States, Great Britain, and the Soviet Union. The books primary focus is on FDR. Baier not only relating FDR's involvement in WWII, but also does a good job of detailing FDR's life, and how he came to be the leader of the free world at such a decisive moment in history. The book does a great job of explaining the complex relationships between FDR, Churchill, and Stalin, and how these relationships affected not only the outcome of WWII, but also world history beyond the end of the war. The book is well researched, well written, interesting, and informative. If you have any interest in world history, you will enjoy this book.
April 12, 2020
A very good book—but a bit of a slog for me to finish (two renewals from my library) but fulfills my nonfiction requirement for the month of April! I consider myself a moderately knowledgeable military historian but admit I knew very little of the personality of Roosevelt, Stalin and Churchill. This book would indicate that Churchill was nowhere re near the dedicated, pure hearted leader history has reported him to be. Roosevelt? Quite insightful and consistent with the belief that he was a great diplomat yet somewhat vain about his crippling health. Highly recommend this book to anyone interested in the later stages of WWII as it gave me much to contemplate and consider.
February 9, 2020
This was a book, probably not something I would have picked on my own. It's an easy read, the author is a TV guy so making something easy to digest would seem to be a strength. It's history-light though, and focuses mostly on personal interactions between Roosevelt and others. I've read a lot about WWII so didn't learn really anything from the book except a few interesting anecdotes about Churchill, but did learn more about Roosevelt's early days. Again, the book felt like today's news coverage if they covered back then. Would not recommend the book.
July 27, 2020
Historically, not much new information. But well written. Obviously, WWII has been covered extensively. My main reason for reading this book was what I hoped would be details regarding FDR’s crossing on the USS Iowa. My dad was aboard for that secret, historic cruise. I was unaware of that until visiting the Iowa two summers ago.
Thank you to the author for the information, and my daughter for gifting me the book.
Thank you to the author for the information, and my daughter for gifting me the book.
October 24, 2019
Hurray for the Stalin of the West! And like a true Messiah, people should bow to his shrine at least once a year. Now love your leaders.
May 19, 2020
Interesting but not outstanding like his other books.
November 12, 2019
Bart Baier's Three Days at the Brink: FDR's Daring Gamble to Win World War II (2019) is part of his "Three Days" series that compacts important events into an easy-to-chew three day episode. The two other books deal with Reagan and the end of the Cold war, and Eisenhower' transfer of the Presidency to Kennedy.
Baier, a journalist at Fox News and host of its Special Report program, makes it clear up front where he is coming from.
Three Days at the Brink is ostensibly about the first Big Three Conference between FDR, Churchill, and Stalin, held at the Soviet Embassy in Tehran during November, 1943. In fact, well over three-quarters of it is devoted to a biography of FDR, much-travelled territory that needed, and got, no help from Bret Baier's rehash. Not until page 255 does Baier get into the Tehran Conference in earnest. Perhaps the three days his title refers to the three days he spent researching the actual event!
The three days in Tehran were one among many meetings among the Allies on war strategy. The first had been an August 1941 meeting between Roosevelt and Churchill at Placentia Bay in Newfoundland. Churchill had traveled there aboard the HMS Prince of Wales and, as Andrew Roberts reports in his über-magnificent Churchill (2019), on the trip over Churchill drafted the outlines of the Allied war strategy that was eventually pursued. Baier doesn't mention this contribution.
Among the subsequent meeting between Roosevelt and Churchill were two Quebec Conferences, three Washington Conferences, two Cairo Conferences (the first with China's hang-Kai-shek, the second with Turkey's president), Casablanca after Operation Torch, and two Moscow Conferences between Churchill and Stalin. Tehran was the first of three Big Three Conferences between the U. S., the USSR and Great Britain: Tehran, Iran; Yalta, Russia; and Potsdam, Germany (with Truman replacing Roosevelt at Potsdam).
For the troglodytes among us, Germany had been on the offensive in 1939-41 but now the Allies had turned the corner: the Russians were on the offensive at the Eastern Front after victory at Stalingrad and Kursk; the November, 1942 Allied offensive in North Africa (Operation Torch)—had ejected Italy and Germany from Africa, ending the threat against Egypt and the Middle East; July 1943's Operation Husky resulted in Allied control in Sicily; and in September 1943 Operation Avalanche landed Allied troops at Salerno to capture Rome. [Mussolini had already been ousted in July 1943 and Italy had surrendered, but it was still heavily defended by German troops and Rome would not fall until July 1944.]
In August, 1942—just before the Salerno landing—Churchill traveled to Moscow to meet Stalin for the first time; he reported that his quarters in the Kremlin were "prepared with totalitarian lavishness." Much of the discussion was about Stalin's demand for a Second Front: Stalin argued that Russia had provided value-in-bloood to Britain and the U. S. by diverting German troops away from Europe at great cost, and that it was about time for a return of the favor. [At this meeting Churchill, looking forward to postwar contests with the Soviet Union in Eastern Europe, proposed a crude division of power between the USSR and Britain; Stalin accepted, knowing that Russian troops would occupy Eastern Europe so Churchill's wishes didn't matter.]
Churchill, who had never favored a cross-channel invasion of France (Stalin's Second Front), countered that a cross-channel invasion could not happen as early as 1942, and perhaps not in 1943, because the requirements of manpower and equipment for an invasion of France exceeded available resources. Instead, he continued to favor a "Mediterranean" strategy—invasion of North Africa, Sicily and Italy followed linking with the Soviet Army for an advance through the Balkans to meet the main German forces from the east.
November 1943 was the time for the first Big Three conference to discuss the next stage of the war—defeating the Germans in Europe. Stalin, as always, wanted a Second Front as soon as possible. One wonders to what extent this was to keep British and U. S. forces on Europe's west coast, as far as possible from the eastern European countries that Stalin had his eye on. Roosevelt and Marshall promoted, as did Stalin, a cross-channel invasion of France from Britain (Operation Roundup, later renamed Overlord), possibly supported by a simultaneous invasion at Marseilles in southern France (Operation Sledgehammer), but Churchill and Brooke—perhaps remembering the bloody WWI stalemate in France, and wanting to block Stalin in Eastern Europe, urged a Mediterranean strategy through Italy and Yugoslavia or, perhaps, through Greece and Yugoslavia.
In the Pacific the Big Two differences were more profound. Churchill proposed a strategy designed to preserve Britain's Empire, particularly India, the jewel in Britain's crown; that strategy would begin in Japanese-held Burma, then move southward through Singapore in Malaysia and turn north through the Philippines to Japan. Roosevelt, having no fondness for colonialism—British or otherwise—urged a more direct approach to Japan through the islands south of Japan. Roosevelt pointed out that it would be American troops and equipment that carried the load in the Pacific. Roosevelt won on Pacific strategy.
The Big Three Conferences
The Tehran Conference brought all three leaders into the mix for the first time. With the German army on the defensive in Russia and in Italy, decisions had to be made about next steps. Stalin's primary and often-repeated demand was for the much-wanted Second Front; Churchill and Roosevelt wanted Stalin's commitment to enter the war against Japan. These were the primary topics at the Tehran Conference. [Baier tells us that after the war Molotov said that Stalin's emphasis on a Second Front was a ruse: by repeatedly demanding something that he knew would not happen, he would built in both Roosevelt and Churchill the feeling that they owed him something!]
Tehran was an odd place for such a meeting, but it was a compromise made at Stalin's insistence: he refused to travel further, placing that burden on Roosevelt and Churchill. He also insisted that it be held at the Russian Embassy, and, Baier says, to ensure that it was at the Russian Embassy Stalin fabricated a story about a team of 38 German assassins dropped into Iran to kill the Big Three leaders—their only safety, he claimed, was at the Russian Embassy. This pattern would follow in later Big Three Conferences: Stalin simply did not want to be off of his own turf, a result of his not-unwarranted paranoia and, quite possibly, his ability to monitor his guests at the Russian Embassy.
At Teheran, Roosevelt displayed his overweening ego, telling Churchill to just lay back and keep quiet while FDR got Stalin's measure and worked his charms on "Uncle Joe." His attempts to cosset Stalin were adolescent and embarrassing, riddled with "wink, wink" insults of Churchill that were supposed to bring FDR and Stalin closer. Churchill was unhappy about FDR's willingness to throw him under the bus to sidle up to Stalin, and Uncle Joe was hardly fooled by FDR's antics. [In fact, Stalin charmed Roosevelt, who continued to believe that he could "work with" Stalin.]
You might ask, "What was FDR's Daring Gamble?" The answer is
Baier, a journalist at Fox News and host of its Special Report program, makes it clear up front where he is coming from.
I don't aspire to match the genius of historians, but intend to put my personal journalist's spin on the great events of Roosevelt's day, culminating with the Tehran Conference and the decision to launch Operation Overlord.In short, this is not the result of original research; rather it is Baier's personal assessment of events. Fair enough! Still, this book is a case of "Not Much There There."
Three Days at the Brink is ostensibly about the first Big Three Conference between FDR, Churchill, and Stalin, held at the Soviet Embassy in Tehran during November, 1943. In fact, well over three-quarters of it is devoted to a biography of FDR, much-travelled territory that needed, and got, no help from Bret Baier's rehash. Not until page 255 does Baier get into the Tehran Conference in earnest. Perhaps the three days his title refers to the three days he spent researching the actual event!
The three days in Tehran were one among many meetings among the Allies on war strategy. The first had been an August 1941 meeting between Roosevelt and Churchill at Placentia Bay in Newfoundland. Churchill had traveled there aboard the HMS Prince of Wales and, as Andrew Roberts reports in his über-magnificent Churchill (2019), on the trip over Churchill drafted the outlines of the Allied war strategy that was eventually pursued. Baier doesn't mention this contribution.
Among the subsequent meeting between Roosevelt and Churchill were two Quebec Conferences, three Washington Conferences, two Cairo Conferences (the first with China's hang-Kai-shek, the second with Turkey's president), Casablanca after Operation Torch, and two Moscow Conferences between Churchill and Stalin. Tehran was the first of three Big Three Conferences between the U. S., the USSR and Great Britain: Tehran, Iran; Yalta, Russia; and Potsdam, Germany (with Truman replacing Roosevelt at Potsdam).
For the troglodytes among us, Germany had been on the offensive in 1939-41 but now the Allies had turned the corner: the Russians were on the offensive at the Eastern Front after victory at Stalingrad and Kursk; the November, 1942 Allied offensive in North Africa (Operation Torch)—had ejected Italy and Germany from Africa, ending the threat against Egypt and the Middle East; July 1943's Operation Husky resulted in Allied control in Sicily; and in September 1943 Operation Avalanche landed Allied troops at Salerno to capture Rome. [Mussolini had already been ousted in July 1943 and Italy had surrendered, but it was still heavily defended by German troops and Rome would not fall until July 1944.]
In August, 1942—just before the Salerno landing—Churchill traveled to Moscow to meet Stalin for the first time; he reported that his quarters in the Kremlin were "prepared with totalitarian lavishness." Much of the discussion was about Stalin's demand for a Second Front: Stalin argued that Russia had provided value-in-bloood to Britain and the U. S. by diverting German troops away from Europe at great cost, and that it was about time for a return of the favor. [At this meeting Churchill, looking forward to postwar contests with the Soviet Union in Eastern Europe, proposed a crude division of power between the USSR and Britain; Stalin accepted, knowing that Russian troops would occupy Eastern Europe so Churchill's wishes didn't matter.]
Churchill, who had never favored a cross-channel invasion of France (Stalin's Second Front), countered that a cross-channel invasion could not happen as early as 1942, and perhaps not in 1943, because the requirements of manpower and equipment for an invasion of France exceeded available resources. Instead, he continued to favor a "Mediterranean" strategy—invasion of North Africa, Sicily and Italy followed linking with the Soviet Army for an advance through the Balkans to meet the main German forces from the east.
November 1943 was the time for the first Big Three conference to discuss the next stage of the war—defeating the Germans in Europe. Stalin, as always, wanted a Second Front as soon as possible. One wonders to what extent this was to keep British and U. S. forces on Europe's west coast, as far as possible from the eastern European countries that Stalin had his eye on. Roosevelt and Marshall promoted, as did Stalin, a cross-channel invasion of France from Britain (Operation Roundup, later renamed Overlord), possibly supported by a simultaneous invasion at Marseilles in southern France (Operation Sledgehammer), but Churchill and Brooke—perhaps remembering the bloody WWI stalemate in France, and wanting to block Stalin in Eastern Europe, urged a Mediterranean strategy through Italy and Yugoslavia or, perhaps, through Greece and Yugoslavia.
In the Pacific the Big Two differences were more profound. Churchill proposed a strategy designed to preserve Britain's Empire, particularly India, the jewel in Britain's crown; that strategy would begin in Japanese-held Burma, then move southward through Singapore in Malaysia and turn north through the Philippines to Japan. Roosevelt, having no fondness for colonialism—British or otherwise—urged a more direct approach to Japan through the islands south of Japan. Roosevelt pointed out that it would be American troops and equipment that carried the load in the Pacific. Roosevelt won on Pacific strategy.
The Big Three Conferences
The Tehran Conference brought all three leaders into the mix for the first time. With the German army on the defensive in Russia and in Italy, decisions had to be made about next steps. Stalin's primary and often-repeated demand was for the much-wanted Second Front; Churchill and Roosevelt wanted Stalin's commitment to enter the war against Japan. These were the primary topics at the Tehran Conference. [Baier tells us that after the war Molotov said that Stalin's emphasis on a Second Front was a ruse: by repeatedly demanding something that he knew would not happen, he would built in both Roosevelt and Churchill the feeling that they owed him something!]
Tehran was an odd place for such a meeting, but it was a compromise made at Stalin's insistence: he refused to travel further, placing that burden on Roosevelt and Churchill. He also insisted that it be held at the Russian Embassy, and, Baier says, to ensure that it was at the Russian Embassy Stalin fabricated a story about a team of 38 German assassins dropped into Iran to kill the Big Three leaders—their only safety, he claimed, was at the Russian Embassy. This pattern would follow in later Big Three Conferences: Stalin simply did not want to be off of his own turf, a result of his not-unwarranted paranoia and, quite possibly, his ability to monitor his guests at the Russian Embassy.
At Teheran, Roosevelt displayed his overweening ego, telling Churchill to just lay back and keep quiet while FDR got Stalin's measure and worked his charms on "Uncle Joe." His attempts to cosset Stalin were adolescent and embarrassing, riddled with "wink, wink" insults of Churchill that were supposed to bring FDR and Stalin closer. Churchill was unhappy about FDR's willingness to throw him under the bus to sidle up to Stalin, and Uncle Joe was hardly fooled by FDR's antics. [In fact, Stalin charmed Roosevelt, who continued to believe that he could "work with" Stalin.]
You might ask, "What was FDR's Daring Gamble?" The answer is
For the sake of Overlord, for the sake of winning the war with Japan, he was willing to link arms with Stalin—who represented a clear future threat to American democracy—and dismiss Churchill, believing he could sort out the relationship at a later time./blockquote>In my mind, it was not only not a gamble—what was Churchill going to do, join Hitler?—it was also not daring, it was an act of sheer egotism.
May 29, 2020
I especially enjoy historical books because I am not reading as a scholar. I read strictly for the pleasure of reading. There have been times when I have mistakenly started in on a book that was meant for scholars. Three Days at the Brink may have been aimed at scholars, but I sure couldn't tell. World War II ended seventy-five years ago, so we all know how it turned out. The urgency with which this story is told held my interest from start to end, and I believe I finished it enlightened.
I have previously heard (and even read) about the Yalta conference, but that's not what this book was about. I did not know that FDR, Winston Churchill and Josef Stalin had met much earlier in Tehran (of all places). Their purpose: to plan Operation Overlord, known to Americans as D-Day, or the invasion of France with the focus on Omaha Beach. Another thing I did not know was how badly the US and Great Britain, stretched alarmingly thin in terms of resources and personnel, needed an alliance with the USSR. For all that, the most prepossessing aspect of this book is the presentation of key historical figures as human beings. FDR, as wiley a president who ever lived, was also as eager as a puppy to keep Stalin happy and coax the Soviet Union into playing a greater role in the war. He knew at all times that the Soviets had already paid the heaviest price in terms of lives lost, and that it would be hard to enthuse Stalin into risking more, but FDR was convinced that he could win Stalin over with the sheer force of his charm. Winston Churchill, in my mind always a cigar chomping bulldog of an orator, comes across as a spurned love. He had enjoyed a brotherly relationship with FDR before Tehran, but was bruised when he was relegated to the second string as FDR engaged Stalin in both public and private dialogue. Stalin himself is presented as a gruff, hearty fellow who believes he is concealing his true aims from his colleagues, which may have been true in terms of the nuts-and-bolts details, but both FDR and Churchill knew that they needed to place severe limits on their trust.
If there was a weakness...I understand that histories must provide background, so as to put events in their proper context. But this book starts with FDR's birth, and even touches upon the latter days of cousin Theodore's presidency. I adore TR, but much of what I read was already well covered in other sources. I notice that Bret Baier has published an edition of this book for young readers. Perhaps some of that background information would have been better situated in such an edition, for readers who may have been encountering FDR for the first time.
But the book has more strengths than weaknesses. Baier saves his own perspective for a short chapter toward the end of the book, which I found illuminating. He speculates as to what FDR's motives may have been for so blithely courting a known mass murderer. He also points out how, had FDR survived his fourth term, he might have been able to corral Stalin into more civilized behavior in the postwar world arena, But Baier also sighs, shrugs and concedes that we will never know for sure.
I could have done without the pre- and postludes that compared the current president to FDR, but I freely admit that this is a matter of my own personal bias. The story is gripping, and despite the rousing success of the Tehran conference, the brief coverage of the aftermath is a sad acknowledgement of stark reality.
I have previously heard (and even read) about the Yalta conference, but that's not what this book was about. I did not know that FDR, Winston Churchill and Josef Stalin had met much earlier in Tehran (of all places). Their purpose: to plan Operation Overlord, known to Americans as D-Day, or the invasion of France with the focus on Omaha Beach. Another thing I did not know was how badly the US and Great Britain, stretched alarmingly thin in terms of resources and personnel, needed an alliance with the USSR. For all that, the most prepossessing aspect of this book is the presentation of key historical figures as human beings. FDR, as wiley a president who ever lived, was also as eager as a puppy to keep Stalin happy and coax the Soviet Union into playing a greater role in the war. He knew at all times that the Soviets had already paid the heaviest price in terms of lives lost, and that it would be hard to enthuse Stalin into risking more, but FDR was convinced that he could win Stalin over with the sheer force of his charm. Winston Churchill, in my mind always a cigar chomping bulldog of an orator, comes across as a spurned love. He had enjoyed a brotherly relationship with FDR before Tehran, but was bruised when he was relegated to the second string as FDR engaged Stalin in both public and private dialogue. Stalin himself is presented as a gruff, hearty fellow who believes he is concealing his true aims from his colleagues, which may have been true in terms of the nuts-and-bolts details, but both FDR and Churchill knew that they needed to place severe limits on their trust.
If there was a weakness...I understand that histories must provide background, so as to put events in their proper context. But this book starts with FDR's birth, and even touches upon the latter days of cousin Theodore's presidency. I adore TR, but much of what I read was already well covered in other sources. I notice that Bret Baier has published an edition of this book for young readers. Perhaps some of that background information would have been better situated in such an edition, for readers who may have been encountering FDR for the first time.
But the book has more strengths than weaknesses. Baier saves his own perspective for a short chapter toward the end of the book, which I found illuminating. He speculates as to what FDR's motives may have been for so blithely courting a known mass murderer. He also points out how, had FDR survived his fourth term, he might have been able to corral Stalin into more civilized behavior in the postwar world arena, But Baier also sighs, shrugs and concedes that we will never know for sure.
I could have done without the pre- and postludes that compared the current president to FDR, but I freely admit that this is a matter of my own personal bias. The story is gripping, and despite the rousing success of the Tehran conference, the brief coverage of the aftermath is a sad acknowledgement of stark reality.
May 6, 2024
Well researched, well presented history of the salient events of WWII and the relationships of the leaders of the Allied Forces.
The first section focuses on a fairly detailed history of FDR. I actually found this interesting and did not feel as though it took away from the overall book; which seems to be a common criticsm of other reviewers. The second section outlines the war itself and is done quite succinctily. No doubt Baier gives a more well-rounded history and explanation of the war than most students get in school nowadays! The third section covers the Conference in Tehran. I thought it was done with excellent detail and great insight into the major players. Again, there is some criticism that this wasn't in-depth enough, but I disagree. Additionally, the book is about Tehran, not Yalta, so don't expect detail of that Conference. The fourth chapter is the Endgame, which also brings to light a lot of tidbits that aren't common knowledge.
Baier does a good job with very little "Monday Morning Quarterbacking" and avoids criticizing the various and sundry decisions that didn't quite work out. He discusses some of these "what ifs" but ultimately points out that we will never really know how FDR planned to manage post war Europe and Stalin. What appear to have been tactical errors in judgement with managing Stalin were likely just immediate decisions that had to be made in order to win the war.
Interesting reading.
The first section focuses on a fairly detailed history of FDR. I actually found this interesting and did not feel as though it took away from the overall book; which seems to be a common criticsm of other reviewers. The second section outlines the war itself and is done quite succinctily. No doubt Baier gives a more well-rounded history and explanation of the war than most students get in school nowadays! The third section covers the Conference in Tehran. I thought it was done with excellent detail and great insight into the major players. Again, there is some criticism that this wasn't in-depth enough, but I disagree. Additionally, the book is about Tehran, not Yalta, so don't expect detail of that Conference. The fourth chapter is the Endgame, which also brings to light a lot of tidbits that aren't common knowledge.
Baier does a good job with very little "Monday Morning Quarterbacking" and avoids criticizing the various and sundry decisions that didn't quite work out. He discusses some of these "what ifs" but ultimately points out that we will never really know how FDR planned to manage post war Europe and Stalin. What appear to have been tactical errors in judgement with managing Stalin were likely just immediate decisions that had to be made in order to win the war.
Interesting reading.
January 15, 2025
Interesting historical political analysis
This book was not what I thought it would be. The first third was an FDR biography then up until the second third is explaining the context of the war before the Tehran Conference. The actual conference is touched but mostly to examine America's starting point with US-Soviet relations; the actual conference doesn't take up too much space in the book. I feel like most people going into a book supposedly about the Tehran Conference know the background going into it, so that piece was a bit overdone in my experience. That being said, I thoroughly enjoyed it.
This book was not what I thought it would be. The first third was an FDR biography then up until the second third is explaining the context of the war before the Tehran Conference. The actual conference is touched but mostly to examine America's starting point with US-Soviet relations; the actual conference doesn't take up too much space in the book. I feel like most people going into a book supposedly about the Tehran Conference know the background going into it, so that piece was a bit overdone in my experience. That being said, I thoroughly enjoyed it.
February 9, 2022
After reading Three Days in Moscow, I was pretty disappointed with this book. Much of it read more like a biography of FDR than a detailed account of the actual days in Tehran, and the conversations between FDR, Churchill, and Stalin. Worthwhile read, but not as entertaining as I had hoped.
August 26, 2022
Definitely an enjoyable read. Read as a biography through the first few parts which is not entirely what I was expecting. I thought the book would go into the planning of Operation Overlord. Overall cannot complain though.
“Don’t fear talking, fear when talking stops”
“Don’t fear talking, fear when talking stops”
March 10, 2023
Excellent book explaining the Presidency of FDR and his negotiations with Stalin during WW2. Very intriguing and Brett made the reader feel as if they were in the room at times with them.
May 25, 2020
A solid 3.5 stars. I think he tries a bit too hard to balance a book on negotiations and history of a specific event or two with a mini biography of FDR. It was good to get some background on him but I would prefer to read a true bio instead of fast forwarding through one. Still a good read with some negotiation / strategy throughout.
November 12, 2019
The focus of the book are the three days of the Tehran Conference, beginning November 28, 1943, where the decision was made to launch Operation Overlord (D-Day)—it may have won the war, but it also set the stage for the beginning of the Cold War. There is an excellent background on FDR’s bio and political career, then his presidential run. The marriage between him and Eleanor (“That women,” according to Florence King) was complex, and FDR did have affairs and a mistress (Lucy Mercer, Eleanor’s assistant), but a divorce, he thought, would end his political career, so it was a nonstarter. They would have six children, and all the boys served in WW II. He mentions that FDR bought the Georgia Warm Springs and used it to set up a Foundation for those suffering from polio. The author never mentioned that this resort was segregated, as I toured this property and nowhere does it mention that fact.
FDR began his fireside chats as governor of New York, which he went on to use to great effect as president. Roosevelt as president found Shangri-La, later renamed Camp David during Eisenhower’s presidency. FDR was devout, praying for strength to do the job of president (with polio), and often mentioning God in his speeches and talks (especially in his prayer delivered over the radio after the success of Overlord). He appointed Frances Perkins Secretary of Labor, the first woman cabinet secretary, she drafted the Social Security Act. There’s a good discussion of the Depression years, before the War. Joseph Kennedy, the ambassador to Great Britain, openly criticized the “Jew media” for the conflict. Churchill plays a crucial role in this story, and it’s an interesting history of the events leading up to the War. The same for Stalin, whom they were both leery of, but needed him as an ally. Churchill and FDR exchanged over 2,000 letters over the course of their relationship. Baier provides some context for two of FDR’s most famous speeches: the arsenal of democracy speech and the Four Freedoms speech (Freedom of speech and expression, freedom to worship God, freedom from want, and freedom from fear).
Pearl Harbor and Japan are part of the story, with the United Kingdom the first nation to declare war on Japan. Baier doesn’t believe that Roosevelt had welcomed the attack on Pearl Harbor as an excuse to enter the war, or that he knew about the attack in advance. He discusses the Japanese internment and how it was a political calculation. FDR was the first sitting president to fly, and Baier recounts to harrowing trips—one by air, the other by ship, the USS Iowa—where FDR could have lost his life. There was some drama about who would lead Operation Overlord, General Marshall, who Churchill and Stalin favored, or Eisenhower, who FDR appointed in the end. After Overlord, there were two more conference between the three, at Yalta and Potsdam, Germany. Baier writes: “It might be said that Tehran won the war but Yalta failed to secure the peace.” He ends the book by using the historical lessons learned from WW II and how it applies to Trump’s talks with North Korea’s leader.
This is a good, breezy, interesting read. As Bret says, he’s not a historian, he’s a journalist, so you’re not going to get a lot of details. You will get a great overview of these events and will be absorbed in the story he tells so well.
Quotes
Churchill: “If Hitler invaded hell I would make at least a favorable reference to the devil in the House of Commons.” (Churchill despised the Soviet regime, but Hitler’s evils trumped all others).
Alice Roosevelt, TR’s daughter: “My father always has to be the bride at every wedding, the corpse at every funeral, and the baby at every christening.”
Journalist Alistair Cooke observed that Roosevelt should go to England and become Prime Minister and Churchill should be president of USA, because the people in each country loved the other leader.
FDR, in meeting with the press after winning his fourth term: “The first twelve years were the hardest.”
FDR began his fireside chats as governor of New York, which he went on to use to great effect as president. Roosevelt as president found Shangri-La, later renamed Camp David during Eisenhower’s presidency. FDR was devout, praying for strength to do the job of president (with polio), and often mentioning God in his speeches and talks (especially in his prayer delivered over the radio after the success of Overlord). He appointed Frances Perkins Secretary of Labor, the first woman cabinet secretary, she drafted the Social Security Act. There’s a good discussion of the Depression years, before the War. Joseph Kennedy, the ambassador to Great Britain, openly criticized the “Jew media” for the conflict. Churchill plays a crucial role in this story, and it’s an interesting history of the events leading up to the War. The same for Stalin, whom they were both leery of, but needed him as an ally. Churchill and FDR exchanged over 2,000 letters over the course of their relationship. Baier provides some context for two of FDR’s most famous speeches: the arsenal of democracy speech and the Four Freedoms speech (Freedom of speech and expression, freedom to worship God, freedom from want, and freedom from fear).
Pearl Harbor and Japan are part of the story, with the United Kingdom the first nation to declare war on Japan. Baier doesn’t believe that Roosevelt had welcomed the attack on Pearl Harbor as an excuse to enter the war, or that he knew about the attack in advance. He discusses the Japanese internment and how it was a political calculation. FDR was the first sitting president to fly, and Baier recounts to harrowing trips—one by air, the other by ship, the USS Iowa—where FDR could have lost his life. There was some drama about who would lead Operation Overlord, General Marshall, who Churchill and Stalin favored, or Eisenhower, who FDR appointed in the end. After Overlord, there were two more conference between the three, at Yalta and Potsdam, Germany. Baier writes: “It might be said that Tehran won the war but Yalta failed to secure the peace.” He ends the book by using the historical lessons learned from WW II and how it applies to Trump’s talks with North Korea’s leader.
This is a good, breezy, interesting read. As Bret says, he’s not a historian, he’s a journalist, so you’re not going to get a lot of details. You will get a great overview of these events and will be absorbed in the story he tells so well.
Quotes
Churchill: “If Hitler invaded hell I would make at least a favorable reference to the devil in the House of Commons.” (Churchill despised the Soviet regime, but Hitler’s evils trumped all others).
Alice Roosevelt, TR’s daughter: “My father always has to be the bride at every wedding, the corpse at every funeral, and the baby at every christening.”
Journalist Alistair Cooke observed that Roosevelt should go to England and become Prime Minister and Churchill should be president of USA, because the people in each country loved the other leader.
FDR, in meeting with the press after winning his fourth term: “The first twelve years were the hardest.”
January 24, 2020
This is the third and final book of the “Three Day Series” by Bret Baier. It is an exceptional read and literally takes you through the entire life of FDR.
The research done by Mr. Baier is certainly quite thorough and exhaustive to bring such a historical text to print. The other two books in this series properly frame this story and give the much needed context that put what authored by Mr. Baier into proper perspective.
The reading is so informative and descriptive that Mr. Baier literally brings to life all that happened during the time of FDR from his beginning as a New York legislator all the way through his illustrious political career up to and including his three terms as our president.
FDR is a legend in US history as being the most progressive and influential leader of his time in history. Not only because of his ability to face and solve the nation’s economic rigors resulting from from the Great Depression, but to face down Hilter and his Nazi regime by bringing together our allies to defeat him.
Using all his political charisma and talent to meet with another dictator, Joseph Stalin, much at the behest of Winston Churchill, FDR had the foresight to see beyond the political differences and world opinions of meeting with the Bolshevik revolutionary who murdered millions all in the name of winning the war.
But yet, FDR knew that the US and Great Britain alone could not do it without the Communists on their side. As they say, “Keep your friends close and your enemies closer”. And that he did, all in the name of stopping the Third Reich. And how this cockeyed optimism played out after FDR’s death certainly revealed itself for the last 70 years indeed.
“Trust but verify” is actually an old Russian proverb that was shared by Gorbachev to Ronald Reagan during their talks and eventually became Reagan’s mantra. He knew full well that the Communist regime never kept to their word. They were famous for saying one thing and doing another. It was all smoke and mirrors and Stalin played it to the hilt knowing full well that his “Uncle Joe” demeanor played handsomely to FDR to get what he wanted, but much to the chagrin of Churchill he knew he had to play along or else.
For without the Russians, WWII would have had a much different outcome. They played a vital role in sacking the Germans and lost millions in doing so. Meanwhile, Great Britain and the US sacrificed very few lives in comparison. So, FDR knew that he had to use what he had before him at all costs.
Stalin literally was his”Ace in the hole” and trumping all that was the truth about Russia was placed aside in the discard pile. FDR played with what he had in his hand and won the game regardless of the future outcome.
I always wondered if the US secretly had negotiated with the Germans to win the war? That is something we will never know. They were the world’s greatest fighting machine and they would have stopped at nothing to obtain world domination.
The US sidelined a great Army General who also would stop at nothing to win; George S. Patton. I also wondered why he was quelled and died a mysterious death? Again, something that we will never know.
He knew the strength of the German army and the deceit of the Communist regime. So, if we allied with the Germany army (as Patton had wanted to do) to invade Russia and destroy Communism, then what would have been the result? Again, that is also unknown, but worth pondering.
This book certainly put everything into perspective and is just a small piece in US history that ultimately changed everything as we once knew. Are we all better for it? That is hard question to answer, but if it had not been done this way then where would we be now? For God only knows.
The research done by Mr. Baier is certainly quite thorough and exhaustive to bring such a historical text to print. The other two books in this series properly frame this story and give the much needed context that put what authored by Mr. Baier into proper perspective.
The reading is so informative and descriptive that Mr. Baier literally brings to life all that happened during the time of FDR from his beginning as a New York legislator all the way through his illustrious political career up to and including his three terms as our president.
FDR is a legend in US history as being the most progressive and influential leader of his time in history. Not only because of his ability to face and solve the nation’s economic rigors resulting from from the Great Depression, but to face down Hilter and his Nazi regime by bringing together our allies to defeat him.
Using all his political charisma and talent to meet with another dictator, Joseph Stalin, much at the behest of Winston Churchill, FDR had the foresight to see beyond the political differences and world opinions of meeting with the Bolshevik revolutionary who murdered millions all in the name of winning the war.
But yet, FDR knew that the US and Great Britain alone could not do it without the Communists on their side. As they say, “Keep your friends close and your enemies closer”. And that he did, all in the name of stopping the Third Reich. And how this cockeyed optimism played out after FDR’s death certainly revealed itself for the last 70 years indeed.
“Trust but verify” is actually an old Russian proverb that was shared by Gorbachev to Ronald Reagan during their talks and eventually became Reagan’s mantra. He knew full well that the Communist regime never kept to their word. They were famous for saying one thing and doing another. It was all smoke and mirrors and Stalin played it to the hilt knowing full well that his “Uncle Joe” demeanor played handsomely to FDR to get what he wanted, but much to the chagrin of Churchill he knew he had to play along or else.
For without the Russians, WWII would have had a much different outcome. They played a vital role in sacking the Germans and lost millions in doing so. Meanwhile, Great Britain and the US sacrificed very few lives in comparison. So, FDR knew that he had to use what he had before him at all costs.
Stalin literally was his”Ace in the hole” and trumping all that was the truth about Russia was placed aside in the discard pile. FDR played with what he had in his hand and won the game regardless of the future outcome.
I always wondered if the US secretly had negotiated with the Germans to win the war? That is something we will never know. They were the world’s greatest fighting machine and they would have stopped at nothing to obtain world domination.
The US sidelined a great Army General who also would stop at nothing to win; George S. Patton. I also wondered why he was quelled and died a mysterious death? Again, something that we will never know.
He knew the strength of the German army and the deceit of the Communist regime. So, if we allied with the Germany army (as Patton had wanted to do) to invade Russia and destroy Communism, then what would have been the result? Again, that is also unknown, but worth pondering.
This book certainly put everything into perspective and is just a small piece in US history that ultimately changed everything as we once knew. Are we all better for it? That is hard question to answer, but if it had not been done this way then where would we be now? For God only knows.
May 12, 2020
This is good review of the leaders during WW two
Displaying 1 - 30 of 195 reviews