Three Days At The Brink
Three Days At The Brink was my first trip through a Bret Baier book. In the acknowledgements, at the end, he mentions how this was the third in his series about impactful events surrounding the Cold War; with his first being Three Days in January (about Eisenhower” and the second being Three Days in Moscow (about Reagan). Having read this, I couldn’t help but wonder if, perhaps, the energy behind his project may have been depleted on the other two books, which I have not read.
The premise for the book, as I saw it, was to be a deep dive into the 2 wartime meetings between the 3 major allied powers during World War 2. One, the meeting in Tehran where they planned Operation Overlord(D-Day), and the other being the meeting in Yalta toward the end of the war where decisions were made on how the countries would proceed after Germany fell.
This is what I looked forward as I began the book. However, after a 10-page prologue, giving us a taste of the 1st meeting, we do not actually return to the first meeting in Tehran for 244 more pages. What I took to be, perhaps, an in-depth view of the meetings between these 3 major titans of history with explorations into certain motivations and unique insights, due to his visit to the Roosevelt library, was more of a “macro biography” of Franklin Delano Roosevelt. Macro in the sense that, had a person set out to write, strictly, a biography, it would certainly be a little more specific as to the details of FDRs life. While Baier definitely spares no detail when it comes to certain aesthetics, trying to paint a vivid picture for the reader, he does not fully commit to the detailed reciting of the man’s life, that a traditional biography is.
While this was a little disappointing for myself, had I read the first two books in the series, I may have already known what to expect; so that’s on me. However, beyond the overall structure, the pace seemed to be a bit herky jerky as well. Occasionally, the timeline of events would flow along, and then back up, then resume with little warning. In Part 2, Baier spends a great deal of time illustrating the gravity of the Great Depression only to wrap up FDR’s role in it (once elected) in a little over the page at the end of a chapter.
The historical spectacle of the book was fascinating. The letters between leaders (among them Hitler, Stalin, and Churchill) where awesome to read, and the recollections of the meeting from those who attended were exactly the intrigue-porn I was looking for. I couldn’t help but feel a bit slighted in that department, though. And it would be hard not to wonder if the author’s artistic efforts had an adverse effect on what he decided to include and what not to include. I imagine he had more information than he knew what to do with. And without merely photocopying old letters into a book and call it his own, he had to find a way to tell his story. And throughout Parts 1 and 2, that’s what he did.
The fact that I’ve spent so much time questioning the writing may suggest that I hated the book. But I didn’t hate it. For a cable anchor, Baier is a capable writer (backhanded?), and my only issues arose from my own expectations that were placed on the book. The book is more about FDR’s life than it is about the meetings. And that makes sense, given that it would difficult to fill out all the pages of a book about a meeting that happened 78 years ago, and had been already been scrutinized to death.
For me, the most interesting part of the book was the history. Baier writes in his “objective journalist” shirt for much of the book, sidestepping controversial topics and giving rather “matter-of-fact” accounts of the events. But, for most of the book, it is written from the perspective of an FDR fan. It is only toward the end of the book where Baier seems to let his mask slip and vacillates between someone trying to acknowledge controversial opinions of FDR, and an FDR apologist. And I didn’t need it. Be a fan or not, I don’t care. Just don’t make it obvious in your writing that you’re trying so hard not to be one or the other. Just tell me a story, is what I say.
I suppose, given the review, I couldn’t really recommend the book, but it was fun at times; just a bit disorienting and (IMO) too long. I will say, though, that one of my biggest take aways from the book is how impactful The Great Depression was/is on American history. Everything about our country has a connection to 1929. From our rapid expansion of Government and our thoughts on Government’s role in the country to the value of our currency; our thoughts on isolationism as a military strategy to our financial trade with foreign countries; and even the morphing of class issues into race issues. All of these things have roots in the roaring 20s, and it’s fascinating to learn.
AgingMillenial 