Project and content management for Contemporary Authors volumes
WORK TITLE: Three Days in Moscow
WORK NOTES:
PSEUDONYM(S):
BIRTHDATE: 8/4/1970
WEBSITE: https://www.bretbaier.com/
CITY: Washington
STATE: DC
COUNTRY: United States
NATIONALITY: American
RESEARCHER NOTES:
PERSONAL
Born August 4, 1970; married October, 2004; wife’s name Amy; children: Paul Francis and Daniel Bret.
EDUCATION:DePauw University, B.A.
ADDRESS
CAREER
Journalist, television program anchor, and writer. FOX News Channel (FNC), began as reporter in Atlanta, GA, bureau, 1998, named chief White House correspondent, 2006, became chief political anchor and anchor of Special Report with Bret Baier; also served as co-anchor of FNC’s America’s Election HQ in 2012 and moderated FNC’s five Republican presidential primary debates. Previously worked for WRAL-TV (CBS 5),Raleigh, NC; WREX-TV (NBC 13), Rockford, IL; and WJWJ-TV (PBS 2),Beaufort, SC.
AWARDS:Sol Taishoff Award for Excellence in Broadcast Journalism, 2017.
WRITINGS
SIDELIGHTS
Bret Baier is a television journalist who works for the FOX News Channel (FNC). He began as a reporter based in Atlanta, Georgia before becoming the channels chief political correspondent and an anchor for his own new show. During the course of his career, Baier has anchored more than thirty political specials on FNC and reported from seventy-four countries, including Iraq and Afghanistan. Baier is also the coauthor of books, including the New York Times bestseller Special Heart: A Journey of Faith, Hope, Courage and Love. Written with Jim Mills, the book is about Baier and his wife caring for their critically ill first-born son.
Three Days in January
Baier is coauthor with Catherine Whitney of Three Days in January: Dwight Eisenhower’s Final Mission. The book examines the Eisenhower presidency via his last three days in office in January 1961 before his successor, John Kennedy, took office. “Baier describes the three days leading up to Kennedy’s inauguration as the culmination of one of America’s greatest leaders who used this brief time to prepare both the country and the next president for upcoming challenges,” wrote Emissourian.com contributor Bill Schwab.
Three Days in January, which reached number two on the New York Times bestseller list, primarily focuses on Eisenhower’s farewell address as his second term as president came to an end. According Baier, the address reveals Eisenhower’s wisdom and foresight. Eisenhower’s farewell address spoke about the essential need for bipartisanship and outlined Eisenhower’s view of how foreign affairs should be conducted. The former U.S. Army general, who oversaw U.S. forces during World War II, also warned about the “military industrial complex,” which he already witnessed growing in power. The book includes a brief biography of Eisenhower from his birth to the the end of his military career, as well as an appendix that include’s Eisenhower parting message in full.
“Three Days in January does contain interesting anecdotes about Eisenhower and provides some clues as to the ‘real’ Eisenhower who never revealed much about himself,” wrote Philip Hart in the Oklahoman Online, who, nevertheless, also noted: “The book is unvaryingly positive about Ike even where some judicious criticism would make Baier’s picture of Eisenhower more credible.” A Kirkus Reviews contributor called the book “a focused and timely study of Eisenhower’s significant speech and the sticky transition to JFK’s inherited new world.”
Three Days in Moscow
Baier follows a similar formula as Three Days in January with his book Three Days in Moscow: Ronald Reagan and the Fall of the Soviet Empire, coauthored with Catherine Whitney. Once again, Baier focuses on a presidential address. This time it was an address made by Reagan in May 1988 to a packed audience at Moscow State University in the then Soviet Union. On his first visit to the Soviet capital, Reagan was attending the fourth summit between himself and Soviet General Secretary Mikhail Gorbachev. The summits largely focused on ways to reduce the threat of nuclear war between the countries that had long been involved in a “Cold War” since the end of World War II.
According to Baier, Reagan thought of his speech to the university students as a great opportunity to discuss the need for freedom and human rights. He emphasied the possibility of these ideals being embraced in Soviet Union. Baier also uses Reagan’s three days in Moscow to impart a broader tale about Reagan’s efforts that ended up orchestrating the end of the Cold War. Baier writes that many aspects of Reagan’s efforts are misunderstood by the public. He provides insights to Reagan’s traits and qualities that helped him succeed where his predecessors had failed in ultimately forming an alliance for peace with the Soviet Union.
“Baier places great emphasis—perhaps too much—on the personal relationship that developed between Reagan and Gorbachev as the defining element of the end of the Cold War,” wrote Francis P. Sempa for the New York Journal of Books website. Writing for the Washington Times Online, John R. Coyne, Jr. called Three Days in Moscow a “highly readable, perceptive and deeply researched study.”
BIOCRIT
PERIODICALS
Kirkus Reviews, December 1, 2016, review of Three Days in January: Dwight Eisenhower’s Final Mission; March 15, 2018, review of Three Days in Moscow: Ronald Reagan and the Fall of the Soviet Empire.
Publishers Weekly, March 12, 2018, review of Three Days in Moscow, p. 53; May 28, 2018, Carolyn Juris, review of Three Days in Moscow, p. 12.
Xpress Reviews, March 9, 2018, Michael Rodriguez, review of Three Days in Moscow.
ONLINE
Bret Baier website, https://www.bretbaier.com (July 3, 2018).
eMissourian.com, http://www.emissourian.com (January 30, 2017), Bill Schwab, review of Three Days in January.
Free Beacon Online, http://freebeacon.com/ (May 13, 2018), Ron Capshaw, “Without Firing a Shot,” review of Three Days in Moscow.
New York Journal of Books, https://www.nyjournalofbooks.com/ (June 24, 2018), Francis P. Sempa, review of Three Days in Moscow.
NPR: National Public Radio website, https://www.npr.org/ (May 12, 2018), Scott Simon, “Reagan, Gorbachev and Three Days In Moscow,” author interview.
Oklahoman Online, https://newsok.com/ (February 5, 2017), Philip Hart, “Book Review: Three Days in January by Bret Baier Contains Mistakes, Oversights.”
Washington Independent Review of Books, http://www.washingtonindependentreviewofbooks.com/ (June 4, 2018), Talmage Boston, review of Three Days in Moscow.
Washington Times Online, https://www.washingtontimes.com/ (February 19, 2017), Pat Roberts, “Revealing the Spirit of Ike,” review of Three Days in January; (May 28, 2018), John R. Coyne, Jr., “Recalling the Momentous Reagan-Gorbachev Summit,” review of Three Days in Moscow.
Bret Baier
Bret Baier currently serves as FOX News Channel’s (FNC) chief political anchor and anchor of “Special Report with Bret Baier” (weeknights 6-7PM/ET), the top-rated cable news program in its timeslot and consistently one of the top five shows in cable news. Based in Washington, D.C., Baier joined the network in 1998 as the first reporter in the Atlanta bureau.
During the 2012 political season, he served as co-anchor of FNC’s America’s Election HQ alongside Megyn Kelly. In addition, Baier provided extensive coverage of the 2012 campaign cycle, anchoring Presidential and Vice Presidential debates, as well as the Republican and Democratic conventions. Baier also moderated FOX News Channel’s five Republican presidential primary debates.
Baier, Kelly and Chris Wallace anchored three GOP debates for Fox News Channel in 2016 with the debate in Cleveland, OH reaching a record 24 million viewers. He interviewed all of the presidential candidates, including Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders in a Democratic town hall, for Special Report. Baier continues to provide extensive political coverage for FOX News Channel.
During his tenure at the network, Baier has interviewed President Donald Trump, Vice President Mike Pence, former President Barack Obama, former President George W. Bush and former Vice President Dick Cheney. He has also anchored more than thirty political specials on FNC, reported from Iraq 12 times and Afghanistan 13 times, traveled the world with various administrations and military officials and reported from 74 countries. Special Report with Bret Baier was acknowledged by TIME magazine’s Joe Klein as the only “straight newscast” in cable news at 6PM/ET. Bret was also recently awarded the 2017 Sol Taishoff Award for Excellence in Broadcast Journalism.
Prior to his anchor role, Baier was named chief White House correspondent in 2006 and covered the second term of the Bush Administration. Before that, he served as national security correspondent covering military and national security affairs, as well as defense, military policy and the intelligence community from the Pentagon.
As FNC’s southeastern correspondent from 1998 to 2001, he covered a range of stories, including the 2001 Timothy McVeigh execution and the 1999 Elian Gonzalez story. He has also provided a series of reports from Cuba and covered more than a dozen hurricanes.
Prior to joining FNC, Baier worked for WRAL-TV (CBS 5) in Raleigh, NC, WREX-TV (NBC 13) in Rockford, IL and WJWJ-TV (PBS 2) in Beaufort, SC. A graduate of DePauw University, he has a Bachelor of Arts in Political Science and English. He is also the author of The New York Times best seller, “Special Heart: A Journey of Faith, Hope, Courage and Love” and “Three Days in January: Dwight Eisenhower’s Final Mission.” Bret’s latest book, “Three Days in Moscow: Ronald Reagan and the Fall of the Soviet Empire,” will be released May 15, 2018 wherever books are sold. Please see the book tab above for more information.
For more information please visit www.foxnews.com/specialreport
The Baier Family
Bret and Amy Baier at the Children’s Ball benefitting Children’s Health
Bret and Amy met on a blind date in October of 2002 after mutual friends decided they would be the “perfect match.” Amy flew in from Chicago and they went to a Rolling Stones concert on a double date. Their friends were right—Bret and Amy married two years later in October of 2004.
The Baier family at the Lincoln Memorial
Paul Francis Baier was born June 29, 2007. He was given a clean bill of health in the first hours after his birth, but the next day, a nurse noticed Paul was turning pale. An echocardiogram soon revealed that Paul had five serious congenital heart defects. Without emergency surgery within days – he would die. Dr. Richard Jonas performed an eight hour open heart surgery on Paul when he was 12 days old. The “fix” included inserting what’s called a homograft – a donated baby aorta that connects Paul’s pulmonary artery with the right ventricle of his heart. The donated connector does not grow with him and at 10 months old Paul went in for his 2nd open heart surgery to have it replaced with a bigger version.
Paul and Daniel at the Eisenhower Library
Since that time, Paul has had numerous angioplasties to open his arteries and to clear the homograft. In September of 2013, Dr. Jonas performed a 3rd successful open heart surgery on Paul. He will have to have at least one more open-heart surgery and other procedures as he continues to grow, but today Paul is very healthy and active. He loves sports and enjoys spending time with his friends.
Daniel Bret Baier was born July 10, 2010 and is a healthy, active child. Daniel is a sports fanatic and plays hockey, lacrosse and basketball. He enjoys playing video games with his friends and following the Washington Capitols.
The Baier family touts their Catholic faith for getting them through the most difficult days in the hospital.
Reagan, Gorbachev And 'Three Days In Moscow'
May 12, 20188:07 AM ET
Heard on Weekend Edition Saturday
Fox News anchor Bret Baier's new book tells the story of President Reagan's 1988 summit with Mikhail Gorbachev. NPR's Scott Simon talks with him about the book and America's current president.
SCOTT SIMON, HOST:
Ronald Reagan stood in front of a bust of Lenin and a mural of the Russian Revolution in a grand hall of Moscow State University 30 years ago and brought down the house.
(SOUNDBITE OF ARCHIVED RECORDING)
RONALD REAGAN: In this Moscow spring, this May 1988, we may be allowed that hope. That freedom, like the fresh green sapling planted over Tolstoy's grave, will blossom forth at last in the rich, fertile soil of your people and culture.
SIMON: And a year later, the Berlin Wall came down and soon thereafter, the Soviet Union. President Reagan's speech was part of his fourth summit meeting with the last Soviet leader, Mikhail Gorbachev, who'd opened a path to reform. Bret Baier, chief political anchor for Fox News, tells the story of that summit in his book, "Three Days In Moscow." He joins us in our studios. Thanks so much for being with us.
BRET BAIER: Scott, thanks for having me.
SIMON: President Reagan didn't believe in what they used to call coexistence. He believed in peace. But he - well, let me get you pick that up.
BAIER: Right. You know, he used that line, peace through strength, and he really was aggressive against the communists in everything he said and did early in his administration - didn't feel like there was an opening with any of the previous leaders. He would joke, all of them are dying on me. But with Mikhail Gorbachev, found someone that he thought he could negotiate with, so even as he was laying down the evil empire and that communism is going to end up in the ash heap of history, he was setting the table for this negotiation that ended up to be historic.
SIMON: What was the nub of the working relationship Ronald Reagan and Mikhail Gorbachev were ultimately able to work out? Because in many ways, Gorbachev's name means - as I don't have to tell you - probably more in the West today than it does in many parts of Russia.
BAIER: Well, that's right because at the end of his time in the Soviet Union in power, the country was going south. Here, he was seen as a guy who opened the door for these negotiations. One of the things was when he came to Washington, he was treated like a rock star. Reagan saw that and how he had kind of captured the moment. And Reagan and Nancy Reagan had their own moment in Moscow going out in the square and people flocking around him.
SIMON: Tell us, though, about another moment that Ronald Reagan had in I believe it was Red Square where he began to notice a pattern to some of the questions that he got.
BAIER: (Laughter) The questions were very detailed, and they were from supposedly average citizens about the negotiations that were ongoing. Basically, those were KGB officers. And if you look closely at the picture, there is a KGB officer, it's believed, Vladimir Putin with a camera around his neck.
SIMON: I have to - I have to obviously mention what I'll call the elephant in the studio.
BAIER: Yeah.
SIMON: Lots of our listeners are going to be upset I'm talking to someone with Fox News, and even though you're identified with Chris Wallace and others as being a good newsman, I think they're concerned about Fox News - not that it's a conservative voice. We have conservative voices all - on all the time - but that Fox News is some kind of mouthpiece for the Trump administration.
BAIER: Right. So my job is a news show. It's a show that covers all sides. Obviously, there are many shows on Fox that have an opinion, and I'd basically put my blinders on and work from 6 to 7 to make sure that we have a product that at the end of the day somebody watching could say that was fair. So the biggest critics are usually the people who haven't seen my show. And I tell them watch three times and drop me an email and tell me how we did.
SIMON: Are you ever aware that the president of the United States might be watching?
BAIER: I'm always aware now.
SIMON: I must say, not a concern that I have so much here (laughter) - sorry.
BAIER: (Laughter) Scott, well, he may be - he may be listening in.
SIMON: And he's welcome to...
BAIER: Yes.
SIMON: ...As far as that goes. But...
BAIER: No, clearly - and his Twitter feed is very active, and sometimes it does track with what we're doing. Listen, we're going to cover all sides. I have not been able to get an interview with the president of the United States, neither has Chris Wallace even though the others on the channel have.
SIMON: Yeah. We speak in a week in which Vladimir Putin has been inaugurated Russia's leader again - 18 years in power. What do you make of President Trump's persistent compliments?
BAIER: You know, every administration has tried to do their own reset with Russia all the way back to Eisenhower and Khrushchev. This is unique because Russia has clearly attacked the United States in a cyber way. They're always active in trying to disrupt something and cause chaos, and they have been for years. But this is unique. So when the president makes the comments that he does, despite what the policy may be, to arm the Ukrainians or to get natural gas to Eastern Europe or to put sanctions on various people, I think there's a hunger for him to step up and say something negative. And that really hasn't happened a lot.
SIMON: What do you think Ronald Reagan learned through his series of summit meetings that something might be good to bear in mind, both for whoever the president is and the public?
BAIER: One is hold your ground. Be willing to walk away. If the deal's not working, walk away. Two is establish relationships. The relationship he had with Gorbachev was really what got them to the finish line. And three was explain it to the American people in a way that you get some support for what you're doing.
SIMON: Bret Baier - his book, "Three Days In Moscow." Thanks so much for being with us.
BAIER: Scott, thanks a lot.
Copyright © 2018 NPR. All rights reserved. Visit our website terms of use and permissions pages at www.npr.org for further information.
NPR transcripts are created on a rush deadline by Verb8tm, Inc., an NPR contractor, and produced using a proprietary transcription process developed with NPR. This text may not be in its final form and may be updated or revised in the future. Accuracy and availability may vary. The authoritative record of NPR’s programming is the audio record.
6/24/2018 General OneFile - Saved Articles
http://go.galegroup.com/ps/marklist.do?actionCmd=GET_MARK_LIST&userGroupName=schlager&inPS=true&prodId=ITOF&ts=1529862021963 1/5
Print Marked Items
THREE DAYS IN MOSCOW
Carolyn Juris
Publishers Weekly.
265.22 (May 28, 2018): p12.
COPYRIGHT 2018 PWxyz, LLC
http://www.publishersweekly.com/
Full Text:
THREE DAYS IN MOSCOW
Brett Baier
#4 Hardcover Nonfiction, #7 overall
Our review said of the Fox anchor's account of the end of the Cold War, "Readers who hold Reagan in high
regard will likely appreciate Baier's burnishing of the myths surrounding him, but those interested in a
rigorous historical investigation will be disappointed."
Source Citation (MLA 8th
Edition)
Juris, Carolyn. "THREE DAYS IN MOSCOW." Publishers Weekly, 28 May 2018, p. 12. General OneFile,
http://link.galegroup.com/apps/doc/A541638730/ITOF?u=schlager&sid=ITOF&xid=0dfab2fe.
Accessed 24 June 2018.
Gale Document Number: GALE|A541638730
6/24/2018 General OneFile - Saved Articles
http://go.galegroup.com/ps/marklist.do?actionCmd=GET_MARK_LIST&userGroupName=schlager&inPS=true&prodId=ITOF&ts=1529862021963 2/5
Baier, Bret: THREE DAYS IN MOSCOW
Kirkus Reviews.
(Mar. 15, 2018):
COPYRIGHT 2018 Kirkus Media LLC
http://www.kirkusreviews.com/
Full Text:
Baier, Bret THREE DAYS IN MOSCOW Morrow/HarperCollins (Adult Nonfiction) $28.99 5, 15 ISBN:
978-0-06-274836-2
Fox News anchor Baier (Three Days in January: Dwight Eisenhower's Final Mission, 2017, etc.) makes a
cheerful case for Ronald Reagan's single-handedly talking the Soviets out of being communists.
Reagan liked to be thought of as a political outsider, but "he wasn't really." He had governing experience as
the two-term chief executive of California and a network of supporters within the federal government, and
he "had evolved as a public persona who could articulate the issues of the day." After a difficult period of
folded-arm posturing back and forth between his White House and the Kremlin, with a few results hardwon
at the arms-reduction talks in Reykjavik, Reagan and his Soviet counterpart, Mikhail Gorbachev,
developed something of a working relationship by which long-closed doors opened up. One of them came
in the form of an invitation to Reagan to speak to an audience at Moscow State University; in the speech he
delivered on May 31, 1988, he spoke hopefully, as was his wont, of new possibilities: "Americans seek
always to make friends of old antagonists." Baier's three-days narrative trope doesn't stand up to close
examination, and his suggestion that the Iron Curtain began to rust away the minute Reagan stepped off the
podium is a little too pat; he sometimes seems to forget that, after all, Gorbachev was doing his part to end
the Cold War, too. To his credit, the author does note the considerable amount of shuttle diplomacy that
extended from Reagan's second term into the incoming administration of George H.W. Bush, a skilled
player on the international stage. Still, a more evenhanded and altogether better account can be found in
Richard Reeves' President Reagan: The Triumph of Imagination (2005) and H.W. Brands'Reagan: The Life
(2015).
Popular history in a triumphant mode, of interest largely to Reagan partisans.
Source Citation (MLA 8th
Edition)
"Baier, Bret: THREE DAYS IN MOSCOW." Kirkus Reviews, 15 Mar. 2018. General OneFile,
http://link.galegroup.com/apps/doc/A530650797/ITOF?u=schlager&sid=ITOF&xid=fd61ddaa.
Accessed 24 June 2018.
Gale Document Number: GALE|A530650797
6/24/2018 General OneFile - Saved Articles
http://go.galegroup.com/ps/marklist.do?actionCmd=GET_MARK_LIST&userGroupName=schlager&inPS=true&prodId=ITOF&ts=1529862021963 3/5
Three Days in Moscow: Ronald Reagan
and the Fall of the Soviet Empire
Publishers Weekly.
265.11 (Mar. 12, 2018): p53.
COPYRIGHT 2018 PWxyz, LLC
http://www.publishersweekly.com/
Full Text:
Three Days in Moscow: Ronald Reagan and the Fall of the Soviet Empire
Bret Baier, with Catherine Whitney. Morrow, $28.99 (368p) ISBN 978-0-06274-836-2
Baier (Three Days in January), chief political anchor for Fox News, tenders a nostalgic account of the
Reagan era and the end of the Cold War. Lauding the former president's "iron-fisted, velvet-gloved
approach" to U.S.-Soviet relations while de-emphasizing the more complex forces at play in the late 1980s,
he portrays Ronald Reagan as a hero for whom turning "the evil empire" onto a path of democracy was a
life mission. He recounts the Reagans' first visit to Moscow in 1988 and the couple's unscripted and nearly
disastrous meet-the-people stroll, revels in Reagan's anti-Communist one-liners, and asserts the president
was "a far more complex human being than his critics gave him credit for." Baier's account of the tense
arms negotiations and numerous summits that defined the era differs dramatically from other recent
literature, in which Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev is given the more pivotal role. Baier also attributes the
fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989 to a speech Reagan gave more than a year earlier. Readers who hold Reagan
in high regard will likely appreciate Baier's burnishing of the myths surrounding him, but those interested in
a rigorous historical investigation will be disappointed. Agency: Folio Literary Management. (May)
Source Citation (MLA 8th
Edition)
"Three Days in Moscow: Ronald Reagan and the Fall of the Soviet Empire." Publishers Weekly, 12 Mar.
2018, p. 53. General OneFile, http://link.galegroup.com/apps/doc/A531285143/ITOF?
u=schlager&sid=ITOF&xid=9c3464c7. Accessed 24 June 2018.
Gale Document Number: GALE|A531285143
6/24/2018 General OneFile - Saved Articles
http://go.galegroup.com/ps/marklist.do?actionCmd=GET_MARK_LIST&userGroupName=schlager&inPS=true&prodId=ITOF&ts=1529862021963 4/5
Baier, Bret: THREE DAYS IN JANUARY
Kirkus Reviews.
(Dec. 1, 2016):
COPYRIGHT 2016 Kirkus Media LLC
http://www.kirkusreviews.com/
Full Text:
Baier, Bret THREE DAYS IN JANUARY Morrow/HarperCollins (Adult Nonfiction) $28.99 1, 10 ISBN:
978-0-06-256903-5
A sobering return to Dwight Eisenhower's farewell address, arriving just before our own moment of
uncertain presidential transition.Eisenhower was a paradox: a former supreme commander devoted to peace
who managed to keep the country out of war for eight years and left a haunting warning in his final
televised speech on Jan. 17, 1961, that the United States had become a "permanent war-based industry."
With co-author Whitney, Fox News host Baier (Special Heart: A Journey of Faith, Hope, Courage and
Love, 2014, etc.) brings new relevance to Eisenhower's parting message to the young, relatively
inexperienced new president, John F. Kennedy. The author explores Eisenhower's last days in office,
especially his sense of needing to prepare JFK for the "fate of the civilized world" and brace him against the
military-driven mindset. Unlike his relations with his own predecessor, Harry Truman, which were strained
and chilly, the World War II hero came around to respecting the glamorous young senator despite their
vastly different backgrounds and his inglorious defeat of Richard Nixon. In the 1960 campaign, Kennedy
had run on the "missile gap" between the U.S. and Soviet Union--the Soviets had launched the world's first
artificial satellite--which Eisenhower knew was "a clever, yet devious, tactic." It was also misleading, since
both countries had enough nuclear weapons to leave the world "a moonscape of radioactive ash." This was
Eisenhower's message in his parting address, which is included in its entirety in an appendix: that industry
had taken over the military; that bright retiring military people had gravitated to aerospace and other related
industries; and that massive federal funding outlays were being granted for scientific-military research. As
Baier notes, his speech warning of "unwarranted influence...by the military-industrial complex" proved
enormously prescient even though it was not widely reported on at the time. Kennedy would learn this
lesson quickly in the Bay of Pigs fiasco. A focused and timely study of Eisenhower's significant speech and
the sticky transition to JFK's inherited new world.
Source Citation (MLA 8th
Edition)
"Baier, Bret: THREE DAYS IN JANUARY." Kirkus Reviews, 1 Dec. 2016. General OneFile,
http://link.galegroup.com/apps/doc/A471902040/ITOF?u=schlager&sid=ITOF&xid=c87c0139.
Accessed 24 June 2018.
Gale Document Number: GALE|A471902040
6/24/2018 General OneFile - Saved Articles
http://go.galegroup.com/ps/marklist.do?actionCmd=GET_MARK_LIST&userGroupName=schlager&inPS=true&prodId=ITOF&ts=1529862021963 5/5
Baier, Bret with Catherine Whitney.
Three Days in Moscow: Ronald Reagan
and the Fall of the Soviet Empire
Michael Rodriguez
Xpress Reviews.
(Mar. 9, 2018):
COPYRIGHT 2018 Library Journals, LLC
http://www.libraryjournal.com/lj/reviews/xpress/884170-289/xpress_reviews-first_look_at_new.html.csp
Full Text:
Baier, Bret with Catherine Whitney. Three Days in Moscow: Ronald Reagan and the Fall of the Soviet
Empire. HarperCollins. May 2018. 368p. notes. index. ISBN 9780062748362. $28.99; ebk. ISBN
9780062748492. HIST
Conservatives lionize former U.S. president Ronald Reagan. Baier (chief political anchor, Fox News) and
cowriter Whitney conform to this convention while skirting the thickest of the lacquer with which
Reaganites coat their hero. As in 2017's Three Days in January, their superior biography of President
Dwight D. Eisenhower, Baier and Whitney take a single crucial event in their subject's life--in this case,
Reagan's visit to Moscow in 1988 --and use it to illuminate the character of an American president. The
authors are happily pro-Reagan, downplaying the administration's less-than-stellar situations, such as the
Iran-Contra scandal. They spout hyperbole, titling one section "Reagan's destiny" and describing 1980s
U.S.-Soviet relations as the "endgame of a decades-long battle for the future of civilization." They indulge
in glittering generalities and weasel words, including phrases such as "many judged that...." On the other
hand, they capture Reagan's fraught but mutually warm relationship with Soviet reformist premier Mikhail
Gorbachev, and they convey a good sense of Reagan's sunny yet aloof personality and leadership style.
Verdict Fans of Ronald Reagan and Fox News will relish this book; other readers will prefer H.W. Brands's
Reagan: The Life for a more grounded portrait.--Michael Rodriguez, Univ. of Connecticut, Storrs
Source Citation (MLA 8th
Edition)
Rodriguez, Michael. "Baier, Bret with Catherine Whitney. Three Days in Moscow: Ronald Reagan and the
Fall of the Soviet Empire." Xpress Reviews, 9 Mar. 2018. General OneFile,
http://link.galegroup.com/apps/doc/A532075577/ITOF?u=schlager&sid=ITOF&xid=db9e0559.
Accessed 24 June 2018.
Gale Document Number: GALE|A532075577
Three Days in Moscow: Ronald Reagan and the Fall of the Soviet Empire
Image of Three Days in Moscow: Ronald Reagan and the Fall of the Soviet Empire
Author(s):
Bret Baier
Release Date:
May 15, 2018
Publisher/Imprint:
William Morrow
Pages:
416
Buy on Amazon
Reviewed by:
Francis P. Sempa
“reaffirms the reality of international politics that no resolution is ever permanent; no victory is ever final.”
Fox News anchor Bret Baier (with his co-author Catherine Whitney) has written a fast-paced and interesting account of Ronald Reagan and the end of the Cold War. Three Days in Moscow refers to President Reagan’s trip to Moscow in late May 1988, where he held his final summit meeting with Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev and delivered a memorable speech to students at Moscow State University.
More than half of the book is devoted to key events during Reagan’s presidency leading up to the Moscow summit. Baier highlights the evolution of Reagan’s public diplomacy toward the Soviet Union, which was shaped by Reagan’s key insight when he took office in 1981 that the Soviet system was rotting from within.
The first public hint of a Reagan strategy to win the Cold War was the president’s speech in June 1982 before the British Parliament. Reagan called the totalitarian regimes in Eastern and Central Europe illegitimate. “Regimes planted by bayonets,” he said, “do not take root.” He envisioned that the “march of freedom and democracy [would] leave Marxism-Leninism on the ash-heap of history.”
Less than a year later in March 1983, Reagan delivered a speech to the National Association of Evangelicals in Orlando, Florida. He called the Soviet regime “the focus of evil in the modern world” and an “evil empire.”
This verbal offensive was matched by a huge military build-up at home, the controversial stationing of intermediate range nuclear missiles in Western Europe, and Reagan’s bold announcement of the Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI) which held-out the promise of a defense against ballistic missiles.
Reagan’s critics in the West (and within the Soviet Union) portrayed him as a reckless warmonger driven by an ideological hatred of communism. Baier notes that Reagan’s hatred of communism was real and stemmed from his early battles against domestic communists in the movie industry in the mid-1940s as head of Hollywood’s Screen Actor’s Guild and his subsequent reading of history.
Reagan had been one of the chief critics of the policy of détente toward the Soviet Union that was initiated by President Nixon, continued by President Ford, and extended by President Carter until the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in December 1979. Prior to becoming president, Reagan once summed-up his view of the Cold War as follows: “We win, they lose.”
Although not fully examined by Baier, that simple formula for victory was actually the result of careful planning by Reagan and his national security team. Now declassified national security documents show that as early as 1982, Reagan expressly established victory in the Cold War as a policy goal.
Peter Schweizer in Victory and Reagan’s War, Paul Kengor in The Crusader, and John Patrick Diggins in Ronald Reagan and the Making of History prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Reagan had a strategy to bring about the collapse of the Soviet empire.
The author notes that Reagan slowly but deftly shifted his strategy when Gorbachev became the leader of the Soviet Union. Reagan, he writes, sensed that Gorbachev was different from the prior generation of Soviet leaders. Indeed, Gorbachev clearly recognized that reform was necessary if the Soviet regime was to survive.
Baier places great emphasis—perhaps too much—on the personal relationship that developed between Reagan and Gorbachev as the defining element of the end of the Cold War. To be sure, the personal trust that developed between the two leaders was important, but U.S. policies that exploited Soviet vulnerabilities—especially economic and political vulnerabilities—were more important.
The author describes the high points and disappointments of the Reagan-Gorbachev summits at Geneva and Reykjavik, Iceland, where progress on nuclear arms limitations was seemingly within reach. Each time, however, Reagan held firm to U.S. defense priorities in the face of tremendous pressures to get a deal.
Reagan was playing for time, it appears, because he sensed that time was on his side. Political dissension was building within the Soviet empire, especially in Poland. Soviet economic difficulties were multiplying. What Reagan told the British Parliament in 1982 about the illegitimacy of communist regimes was true.
Baier rightly points to Reagan’s Berlin Wall speech in June 1987 as a pivotal public moment signaling that the endgame was near. Reagan defied both his State Department and National Security Council staff by calling on Gorbachev to “tear down” the Berlin Wall, which since August 1961 had symbolized a geopolitically-divided Europe and an ideologically divided world.
Gorbachev signed the INF Treaty and began withdrawing Soviet forces from Afghanistan. A summit in Washington was followed by a summit in Moscow where Reagan told the Russian students about the promise of freedom. It was a speech, Baier writes, “remarkable for its poetry [and] its subversive seduction.”
After summarizing the events that ended the Cold War and celebrating Reagan’s achievement, Baier describes the current dismal state of relations between the United States and Vladimir Putin’s Russia. It is a sobering end to an otherwise optimistic book. And it reaffirms the reality of international politics that no resolution is ever permanent; no victory is ever final.
Francis P. Sempa's most recent book is Somewhere in France, Somewhere in Germany: A Combat Soldier's Journey through the Second World War. He he has also contributed to other books as well as written numerous articles and book reviews on foreign policy and historical topics for leading publications. Mr. Sempa is Assistant U.S. Attorney for the Middle District of Pennsylvania. The views reported in this review are those of the reviewer and not those of the U.S. government.
Recalling the momentous Reagan-Gorbachev summit
Print
By John R. Coyne Jr. - - Monday, May 28, 2018
ANALYSIS/OPINION:
THREE DAYS IN MOSCOW: RONALD REAGAN AND THE FALL OF THE SOVIET EMPIRE
By Bret Baier, with Catherine Whitney
William Morrow, $28.99, 397 pages
“Ronald Reagan won the Cold War without firing a shot,” said Margaret Thatcher of one of the most singular accomplishments in contemporary history, analyzed in this highly readable, perceptive and deeply researched study by Bret Baier, chief political news anchor for Fox News.
Mr. Baier’s focus is on the three days of President Reagan’s fourth and final summit with Soviet General Secretary Mikhail Gorbachev in Moscow, culminating in what he called his “final act,” the high point of which would be a speech at Moscow State University.
As he saw the occasion, writes Mr. Baier, “He had just three days to let the Russian people take a personal measure of the possibilities of democracy . He had been preparing for this moment for most of his life, and he had to make it count.” It was, as the president put it, an unprecedented opportunity, “a grand historical moment.”
SPONSORED CONTENT
Welcome to the Future: The Analytics Age Has Started
Welcome to the Future: The Analytics Age Has Started
Intel
Did You Know How Easy It Is To Register Your Dog As a Service Animal?
Did You Know How Easy It Is To Register Your Dog As a…
Service Animals | Sponsored Links
The Early Signs of Hepatitis C. Learn about Symptoms & Treatments
The Early Signs of Hepatitis C. Learn about Symptoms &…
Yahoo! Search
This Is What Dental Implants Should Cost in Texas
This Is What Dental Implants Should Cost in Texas
Dental-Implants-Sponsored-Links
Recommended by
The speech, given with a giant statue of a grim Lenin looming in the background — a splendid juxtaposition of the two systems personified by speaker and censorious onlooker — given to a full house of students from the Soviet Union’s most prestigious university, as well as officials and apparatchiks, was a celebration of democracy, freedom and human rights.
It marked the first time an American president — or anyone else, for that matter — had spoken of such subjects in the Soviet Union, and did so in such an open and sincere way, with such obvious conviction.
On June 1, 1988, The New York Times, certainly not an organ of the Ronald Reagan fan club, would write: ” ‘When people some day look back to the milestones of the cold war, they are likely to remember the day Ronald Reagan extolled freedom, while Lenin looked on.’ “
In the end, it was Ronald Reagan’s sincerity (a political rarity, he was exactly the man he seemed to be) and his eloquent idealism, combined, as Dick Cheney pointed out, with ” ‘the Reagan policy of firmness, the U.S. military buildup, the threat of SDI [that led to] the conclusion on the part of Gorbachev and those around him that they could not compete with the United States on those terms and they had to fundamentally change their system.’ “
While the Moscow speech is the centerpiece, Mr. Baier’s refreshing one-volume account of Ronald Reagan’s extraordinary career also provides a well-informed account of how business is done in the White House, including the speechwriting process, which changes little.
Ronald Reagan’s own abilities as a speaker, writer, editor and man in command of his thoughts gave his writers an advantage. In big speeches he knew what he wanted to say, so that left the task of saying it in the most effective way possible, preferably in memorable phrases.
But as in all White Houses, such formulations frequently set off alarms among advisers and Cabinet members. The White House speechwriters who feel strongly about their formulations hope to have the president sign off on them before the furor begins, or better, have them come from the president himself.
Thus it was with the phrase in an address to the British Parliament, consigning the Soviet Union to “the ash heap of history”; the command to Mr. Gorbachev to “tear down this wall”; or his designation of the Soviet Union as an “evil empire.”
That phrase, appearing in a draft written by Tony Dolan, the president’s principal writer, would set off a bureaucratic furor. Aram Bakshian, White House director of speechwriting, initially spotted it, knew its potential for trouble, but decided not to call attention to it.
” ‘First of all,’ said Mr. Bakshian, ‘it is an evil empire, what the hell, and if someone up there disagrees or is nervous about it, it’s up to them to notice it.’ ” As it turned out, there were nervous people, but they were outvoted by the president, who agreed with Mr. Dolan and Mr. Bakshian.
Later, as Mr. Baier points out, on the occasion of the historic Moscow speech, which Mr. Gorbachev had invited the president to give and had made him and Nancy Reagan welcome in Moscow in the process, Mr. Reagan announced that the “evil empire” was a thing of the past.
And no matter what the opinions of Russia today, fed as they frequently are by strange and often far-fetched political conspiratorial theories, one thing is certain: There are no, doubt, lingering vestiges of evil — the KGB by any other name is still the KGB.
But thanks to Ronald Reagan, it’s no longer an empire, evil or otherwise.
• John R. Coyne Jr., a former White House speechwriter, is co-author of “Strictly Right: William F. Buckley Jr. and the American Conservative Movement” (Wiley).”
Three Days in Moscow: Ronald Reagan and the Fall of the Soviet Empire
By Bret Baier and Catherine Whitney HarperCollins 416 pp.
Reviewed by Talmage Boston
June 4, 2018
The Fox News star's formula results in another winning historical read.
Fox News anchor Bret Baier has a great history-writing formula working for him these days and, like all great performers, he knows his audience. The formula works so well because every weeknight, he appears in front of 3.5 million mostly Republican viewers. Then, every 16 months, aided by able researchers and veteran writing collaborator Catherine Whitney, he turns out more than 300 pages covering the story of an admired Republican president.
In general, his text showers praise on the subject’s life; in particular, he focuses on his chosen commander-in-chief’s most memorable three consecutive days in office.
Assuming the resulting book is a quality product, with those circumstances in place, Baier has a guaranteed bestseller on his hands. The assumption of quality being confirmed, the formula worked the first time with Three Days in January: Dwight Eisenhower’s Final Mission, which came out in January 2017 and reached number two on the New York Times bestseller list.
Literary history is now repeating itself with his new book, Three Days in Moscow: Ronald Reagan and the Fall of the Soviet Empire, which debuted a couple of weeks ago at number five on the list. Baier has confirmed that the next book in his series is already being researched at an as-yet-unidentified presidential library and should be out by the fall of 2019. As the adage goes, “It’s nice work if you can get it.”
Regardless of the formula and the marketing machine behind it, Three Days in Moscow is a smooth, informative, and persuasive piece of history writing. Lest there be anyone on the fence about Reagan’s legacy as a leader and communicator of the highest order, all doubts are removed after reading Baier’s book.
To achieve the book’s desired length, there is an extended buildup to President Reagan’s arrival in Moscow for his fourth and final summit with Mikhail Gorbachev. How extended? He and Nancy arrive in Moscow on page 239. The pre-Moscow pages cover Reagan’s upbringing, education, sportscasting radio days, movie career, family, job as General Electric’s pitchman, eight years as California governor, and first seven years as president — emphasizing his Geneva, Reykjavik, and Washington, DC, summits with Gorbachev that preceded Moscow.
The prose and presentation of information in the condensed biography are airtight, making the reader well aware of all Reagan had done in his life before late May 1988 that formed his state of consciousness upon his arrival in Moscow. Once there, the narrative gets much more specific.
Among other human-interest highlights, he and Nancy drew an overflow crowd when they unexpectedly decided to walk the streets to meet the Russian people; then, at Red Square, in a setting secretly orchestrated by the Soviet leaders, they found themselves answering pointed questions from KGB members disguised as peasants.
Throughout the three days in Moscow, 77-year-old Reagan performed at the top of his game on Gorbachev’s home court — unyielding in insisting that America’s Strategic Defense Initiative (“Star Wars”) would not be abandoned; quoting Solzhenitsyn on the importance of Russian churches and Pushkin on the need for peace; offering a dinnertime toast containing lyrics from a Russian folk song; and relentlessly charming the pants off Gorbachev with his glowing words of friendship.
The epicenter of Reagan’s time in Moscow came with his electrifying speech to the students at Moscow State University, the full text of which appears in the book’s appendix. There, speaking in front of a large bust of Lenin that towered behind him, the Great Communicator waxed eloquent on the importance of human rights in what his speechwriter Anthony Dolan called “the final flowering of Reagan’s philosophy” and “the climax to the continuum of his grander design” vision for the ultimate free society.
Baier describes the tone of Reagan’s speech at the university as “optimistic and futuristic, friendly and even collegial, like old friends making plans.” He opened with a line guaranteed to create instant rapport with his audience, wishing the college students well on their upcoming exams, saying, “So, let me just say, zhelayu vam uspekha [I wish you success].”
Then he lifted their hopes toward a brighter future by quoting Boris Pasternak from Dr. Zhivago: “What has for centuries raised man above the beast is not the cudgel, but an inward music — the irresistible power of unarmed truth.”
Upon finishing his masterpiece in soaring rhetoric, which the New York Times reported as “Ronald Reagan’s finest oratorical hour,” he opened the floor for questions. In that give-and-take format, his humor, warmth, and authenticity captivated the students, just as it had Gorbachev. After leaving the university, Reagan said that “while the students were cheering, I looked behind me and saw Lenin weeping.”
Baier’s book succeeds in presenting the Moscow Summit as the final tour-de-force of Ronald Reagan’s presidency — a time when everything clicked for him and he had the opportunity to deliver the vital message of human rights and freedom to a Russian people who fed off his every word.
Reading the well-crafted account of how the old communist-fighting master performed on such a grand stage produces feelings of sheer patriotic exhilaration and justifies why so many hold Reagan in such high esteem for his role in ending the Cold War.
Three Days in Moscow does not deliver any new information about Reagan. Thus, the history lover in search of fresh angles on his life or presidency will come up empty. That said, the book achieves its goal of amping up the floodlights of new appreciation for Reagan’s star power, which is what Baier’s readers are surely hoping for when they pick up this book.
Talmage Boston is a lawyer and historian in Dallas, Texas. His latest book is Cross-Examining History: A Lawyer Gets Answers From the Experts About Our Presidents (Bright Sky Press 2016).
Without Firing a Shot
Review: 'Three Days in Moscow: Ronald Reagan and the Fall of the Soviet Empire' by Bret Baier and Catherine Whitney
SHARE
TWEET
EMAIL
Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev and President Ronald Reagan / Getty Images
BY: Ron Capshaw
May 13, 2018 5:00 am
When liberal historian John Patrick Diggins informed Arthur Schlesinger Jr. that he was writing a biography of Ronald Reagan, Schlesinger urged him not to make Reagan "look too good."
But unlike Schlesinger, who made "his" president—John F. Kennedy—look too good (i.e., an Arthurian king who would have ended the Cold War had he dodged Lee Harvey Oswald's bullets), Diggins was an old-fashioned historian, the kind who followed the evidence no matter where it led.
And the evidence—Reagan's diaries, declassified papers, and above all the speeches—led Diggins into declaring Reagan one of the three greatest presidents, alongside Abraham Lincoln and Franklin D. Roosevelt.
But Diggins was an apostate among liberals who have then and now sought to deny Reagan credit for winning the Cold War. Some have proclaimed Mikhail Gorbachev the true hero who ended the conflict rather than the "lightweight" and "mentally challenged" Reagan. For those who think America did win, they have credited the victory as the result of Harry Truman’s containment policy, the purpose of which was to destroy the faulty Soviet economy by hemming the Russians in.
It has been left up to the center-right and conservative historians to give Reagan his due. Although they are generous to Gorbachev they empirically make the case that it was Reagan who won the Cold War.
But there has been minor disagreement as to the hinge event that resulted in the Soviet collapse. For some it was the Soviet withdrawal from Afghanistan—Russia's "Vietnam"—that signaled the end. For others it was the fall of the Berlin Wall.
In Three Days in Moscow: Ronald Reagan and the Fall of the Soviet Empire, Bret Baier has his own moment when the Cold War ended, but it is less dramatic and more symbolic. He points to Reagan's 1988 speech to initially hostile Russian college students. Against the backdrop of a Lenin statue, Reagan in the heart of Communist Russia won them over with a speech praising Jeffersonian democracy.
Baier's approach is epic, along the lines of liberal historian treatments of FDR and JFK. As such he is less concerned with Reagan's closed-off personality (which obsessed Edmund Morris in his forgettable biography of the president). Instead he focuses on Reagan's developing philosophy toward communism.
Reagan the anticommunist activist was born in a battle with Hollywood Communists while head of the Screen Actors Guild in 1946. Here he learned about Communist duplicity and terror tactics (during this period Reagan slept with a pistol near his bed). Their goal was to take over the tinsel-town unions, but Reagan prevailed by opening the floor to a membership vote as to determine the ideological complexion of the union.
A year later Reagan extended using democracy to fight communism to the nation at large in testimony before Congress in its investigation into communist influence in Hollywood. In contrast to other anticommunist witnesses who wanted to ban the Communist Party, Reagan disagreed and asserted that the best way to expose communism was to present all the facts to the American people.
But it would be in the 1950s that Reagan would craft the policies that would one day cause the Soviet collapse. As a spokesperson for General Electric he witnessed first-hand the economic strength of the country by touring factories. This strength would be instrumental to Reagan's belief that the Cold War could be won.
Appalled by a nuclear exchange, Reagan saw America's robust economy as a weapon. He believed that by involving the Soviets in a costly arms race they would not be able to keep up and would implode.
This message reached national audiences and won him political backing when he gave a speech for the doomed Goldwater campaign in 1964. Enunciating his criticism of the "welfare state" and those who refused to fight Soviet aggression, Reagan advocated for not only "peace through strength" but also taking the Soviets on economically.
During his first term in office Reagan put these views into practice. Rather than taking the Soviets on directly, Reagan funded their opponents in Afghanistan, Nicaragua, and behind the Iron Curtain in Poland. Most of all Reagan upped the nuclear ante, placing nuclear missiles in Western Europe.
Still, this supposed "hard-liner" did reach out to Brezhnev early in his term advocating for a reduction in nuclear weapons by the two powers.
Baier takes us through the famous speeches: "the Evil Empire" and "Tear Down This Wall." Again and again, he shows how the détente-minded in the White House, namely George H.W. Bush, sought and failed to rein him in. Baier dispenses with the perception that Reagan was a non-intellectual. He shows that Reagan was a closet writer, revising and even rewriting speeches that did not reflect his uncompromising anticommunist views.
By the time of the Gorbachev summits, Reagan had his strategy intact. These meetings did not occur because Reagan had turned "soft" on communism (an accusation made against him by conservatives outside the White House loop at the time), but was in reality using the strategies developed in the 1950s to win the Cold War.
The summits were Reagan's greatest hour. While he believed Gorbachev to be a more reasonable type of Soviet leader, Reagan refused to back down. To an enraged Gorbachev he refused to use the term "peaceful coexistence" to describe their relations. But apart from his economic might, Reagan's biggest ace in the hole was SDI or, as it was labeled by critics, "Star Wars." Despite Reagan promising to share this with Gorbachev, the Soviet ruler was terrified of an American missile shield. Even among his advisers who knew such a shield was an unworkable fantasy, they nevertheless applauded how Reagan used this as leverage.
Although clearly sympathetic, Baier relies on fact. And for reasonable people it is apparent that Reagan did end the Cold War. Baier's work validates Margaret Thatcher's salute to Reagan at the end of his presidency for "ending the Cold War without firing a shot."
Book review: 'Three Days in January' by Bret Baier contains mistakes, oversights
BY PHILIP HART FOR THE OKLAHOMAN
Published: Sun, February 5, 2017 12:00 AM
0
shares
email 0
Support local journalism by upgrading to NewsOK Pro.
“Three Days in January: Dwight Eisenhower's Final Mission" by Bret Baier with Catherine Whitney (William Morrow, 346 pages, in stores)
In this best-seller, author Bret Baier, Fox News Channel's Chief Political Anchor, offers Dwight Eisenhower's farewell address at the end of his second term as president as being a wise and farseeing document from which we can profit today.
Ike stressed the need for bipartisanship and balance in all things governmental, and, in foreign affairs, to be governed by the Latin maxim “gently in manner, strong in deed.” And Eisenhower urged that we keep a watchful eye on the “military-industrial complex” in the United States that had grown exponentially since its genesis in World War II.
Baier is right in thinking that Ike's farewell address should be unearthed and revisited in these tumultuous political times. It would be a good subject for an essay for the op/ed page of a newspaper and, hopefully, widely discussed.
However, as the centerpiece for a full-length book, it does not fare as well. To be sure, Baier has fleshed out "Three Days in January" by preceding the part about the speech with a thumbnail biography of Eisenhower from boyhood through his military years, and then with many digressions in the part of the book about the speech itself. Does this work? Not very well in this reviewer's opinion.
On a positive note, "Three Days in January" does contain interesting anecdotes about Eisenhower and provides some clues as to the “real” Eisenhower who never revealed much about himself. Jean Edward Smith concludes his full-length biography of Eisenhower with Ike's grandson David, several years after Ike's death, asking his grandmother Mamie if she felt she had really known Ike, to which she replied that she was not sure anyone did.
Now the downside. The biographical sketch of Eisenhower with which the book begins is marred by several errors regarding World War II.
Sending American and British troops into North Africa in 1942 was not “to open up a pathway … [leading to] mainland Italy and onward through Europe;” the three landings in North Africa were not met “with only minor Vichy resistance and very few American casualties;” and Ike's performance in the North African campaign can hardly be characterized as “masterful work” since he had to be kicked upstairs with a fourth star and three deputy commanders named to conduct the ground operations.
Nor did Winston Churchill, Charles de Gaulle and Franklin Roosevelt comprise a “powerful troika” of the Allied front. “Troika” connotes three persons working together in the management of an enterprise. De Gaulle played no such role, nor would Roosevelt have permitted him to do so.
That the dropping of the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki “might have been avoided had not Truman insisted on unconditional surrender” falsely infers that whether to drop the bomb was the subject of debate among those responsible for prosecuting the war against Japan with Truman insisting on Japan's unconditional surrender. There was no such debate and no evidence that the unconditional surrender policy (established at Roosevelt's urging long before Truman became President) was a significant factor in Truman's decision to drop the bomb.
What is known is that General Marshall reported to Truman his estimate that in an invasion of the Japanese mainland U.S. ground troops would sustain a minimum of 225,000 casualties, and that during the long and bloody Pacific war there had never been an instance in which a Japanese unit had surrendered.
There are two excellent full-length biographies of Eisenhower that cover his growing stature and ultimate success as Supreme Allied Commander in World War II, tracing his Army career from West Point to being called to Washington following Pearl Harbor and being judged by General Marshall as capable of performing at the highest level of war planning and execution, and with the biographers' coverage of Ike's presidential years also satisfying the high standard of their work. One of the biographies is mentioned above, that of Jean Edward Smith (Random House, 2012). The other is Michael Korda's “Ike, an American Hero” (HarperCollins, 2007).
FROM THE HOMEPAGE
Two candidates for Oklahoma attorney general stand by going negative in the campaign
NEWSUpdated: 7 hours ago
Support local journalism by upgrading to NewsOK Pro.
Although the biographical material with which "Three Days in January" begins skips over many interesting events in Ike's pre-World War II army career, it does proceed chronologically.
Then a shotgun approach takes over for Ike's White House years in which chronology is in large part abandoned. Baier describes certain events during Eisenhower's presidency that either illustrate his management style (“the hidden hand”) or show that Ike had followed the precepts set out in his farewell address and blends them in with a discussion of various portions of the speech.
However, much of the material included does not fit into this framework. The result is a very sketchy account of Ike's eight years in the White House, with chronology that could add some needed continuity to the book taking a backseat.
With the exception of Eisenhower's failure to speak out condemning Senator Joseph McCarthy for questioning the loyalty of Eisenhower's mentor, Gen. George Marshall, the book is unvaryingly positive about Ike even where some judicious criticism would make Baier's picture of Eisenhower more credible.
For example, it is undeniable that the cornerstone of American foreign policy during Eisenhower's presidency was one of brinkmanship in dealing with the Soviet Union, with Strategic Air Command nuclear-armed bombers hovering in the air over the United States 24/7 awaiting orders to proceed instantaneously to destroy the Soviet Union. However justified that strategy may have been, in any event Eisenhower owned it. It will not do to attribute this hard line policy to Eisenhower's Secretary of State, John Foster Dulles, as being Ike's “bellicose counterpart,” or to say that “Ike made it clear who was boss and sought to moderate Dulles's approach.”
As indicated in the introduction to "Three Days in January," Baier's inspiration for writing the book originated with his visit to the Eisenhower Presidential Library, Museum and Boyhood Home in Abilene, Kansas, where he was permitted to remove the final draft of Eisenhower's farewell address from the folder in which it is preserved and examine it carefully, noting all of Ike's last minute penciled in revisions.
Baier's insight in seeing the relevance of the address to current times and proceeding to call attention to it is all to the good.
— Philip Hart, for The Oklahoman
Revealing the spirit of Ike
Print
By Pat Roberts - - Sunday, February 19, 2017
ANALYSIS/OPINION:
THREE DAYS IN JANUARY: DWIGHT EISENHOWER‘S FINAL MISSION
By Bret Baier
William Morrow, $28.99. 368 pages
Bret Baier’s new book, “Three Days in January: Dwight Eisenhower’s Final Mission,” highlights Ike’s passing of the torch as commander in chief to Jack Kennedy as the key to opening the door to a better, more accurate understanding of Ike. Change of command in military units, large and small, is always arresting, and from president to president is unique, as we just saw again on Jan. 20, 2017.
Ike, the last general to serve as president, had as his lifelong role model the first general to serve as president, George Washington. Eisenhower admired much in Washington’s leadership and his achievements, and that included Washington’s farewell address. Mr. Baier uses Ike’s farewell address, and the associated transition in presidential office and power, to enable him to probe successfully and effectively the many dimensions of Eisenhower’s leadership and psychology.
Mr. Baier discovers and illuminates Ike through the potent lens of a seasoned journalist. Most important, his experience as chief White House correspondent for three years enables him not only to assess Eisenhower independently and authentically, but also to share his genuine excitement in discovering Ike for himself. His superb communications skills sustain interest and entertain the reader with the journalist’s sharp eye for the human dimension of a story.
SPONSORED CONTENT
New Snoring Solution 10x Cheaper Than A CPAP
New Snoring Solution 10x Cheaper Than A CPAP
SmartConsumerToday
The Leading Attorneys In Dallas
The Leading Attorneys In Dallas
Attorney | Sponsored Links
The Results Are In - 2018's Best Luxury Vehicles for Seniors!
The Results Are In - 2018's Best Luxury Vehicles for Seniors!
Faqeo
Dallas: New 'Super' Antenna Picks Up Over 50 HD Channels
Dallas: New 'Super' Antenna Picks Up Over 50 HD Channels
MyTvBuddy En
Recommended by
The first third of the book is devoted to a graceful aerial view from 10,000 feet of Ike’s life before the presidency through the conclusion of his two administrations. This prepares the reader to accept and understand the true strategic significance of Eisenhower’s leadership as civilian president and commander in chief. Mr. Baier describes and analyzes Ike’s methodical, carefully planned and purposeful transition of power in a democracy, from Ike to Jack, the first being the oldest president at the time to be elected and the second having been the youngest to be elected — both given strong mandates of change for America.
Mr. Baier gets Kansas — and Ike as a Kansan — right. He correctly identifies the “hardscrabble existence” of the loving and disciplined Eisenhower family as the formative crucible out of which Eisenhower’s extraordinary character and personality were shaped and imbedded. This supports history’s eventual development of Ike as a world historical hero after he left Kansas at the age of 21. In Mr. Baier’s telling, Ike emerges as a very complicated personality grounded in traditional principles and values, possessing an exceptional, foresightful intellect. Mr. Baier describes the thread of consistent underestimation that runs through the whole of his life, including the presidency. There is a cold, purposeful calculation, which enabled Ike to successfully manipulate his contemporaries, both rivals and subordinates.
The motivating drive and desire for this intense and successful pursuit of the true Ike lies in Mr. Baier’s avid pursuit of an answer to the question, “What made him great?” He shares his excitement of discovery with the reader as he peels the onionlike layers of Eisenhower’s personality. It is after all a quintessential American story of transcending dignity and success, of personal humility and enormous self-confidence, and unique achievements of which all Americans can be proud.
For Mr. Baier and for all of us interested in Ike, the difficulty of accurately assessing Eisenhower’s true historical significance is complicated by the role of multiple paradoxes in his life. Mr. Baier shows us that the central transforming paradox of Eisenhower’s public life, as a professional military officer and civilian commander in chief, was his commitment to peace, not war, that will be symbolized in the forthcoming Eisenhower Memorial. Raised and nurtured in a pacifist family, Ike became paradoxically both a professional soldier, mastering the weapons and the organization of modern warfare, and also a passionate champion of peace, an extraordinary duality in a soldier who believed that war was not a solution to the nation’s or the world’s problems. This became the professional soldier’s final and ultimate passion — to ensure and to enable global peace, thereby making possible the maximum amount of freedom for America. Ike knew that freedom cannot exist without peace.
Mr. Baier dedicates his superb book to his sons, with his eye on their future, perhaps because he discovers that Ike’s leadership was focused on the future. This did not conflict with Ike’s traditional leadership style, values and principles nor with his pragmatic, problem-solving conservatism. His cold-eyed, impressive intellect was focused on America’s future in a time of accelerating change in a globally threatening world. The Farewell Address eloquently presents Ike’s carefully crafted concerns, described and analyzed by Mr. Baier and excerpted for the Eisenhower Memorial.
Many have tried to assess Ike. Few succeed. Mr. Baier does, with the inspired selection of the closing event of Ike’s presidency as a touchstone in a passionate search for the diverse, complex and energizing “spirit of Ike.”
• Pat Roberts, a Republican senator from Kansas, is chairman of the Eisenhower Memorial Commission.
Review: "Three Days in January" by Brett Baier with Catherine Whitney
Reviewed by Bill Schwab Jan 30, 2017 (0)
"Three Days in January"
Facebook
Twitter
Email
Print
Save
Brett Baier, the chief political anchor for Fox News and talented writer Catherine Whitney, have written a book that comes at a timely moment in American history. “Three Days in January” records the final days of the Eisenhower presidency and the transition of leadership to John F. Kennedy.
Baier describes the three days leading up to Kennedy’s inauguration as the culmination of one of America’s greatest leaders who used this brief time to prepare both the country and the next president for upcoming challenges.
Eisenhower did not like JFK. Baier writes: “In most respects, Kennedy, a son of privilege following a dynastic pathway, was unknowable to Ike. He was as different from Eisenhower as he could be, as well as from Truman, who didn’t much care for him.”
But on December 6, 1960 there was a meeting between the retiring President and the campaign weary young president-elect, Ike was surprised to find himself impressed with Kennedy. The President found his successor to be thoughtful and eager to learn how to run the Executive Branch.
Eisenhower had been perplexed that voters had chosen (by 120,000 votes) such a naïve person over the skilled and experienced Richard Nixon. Ike soon found an inner quality about Kennedy that was very likable. During this meeting they each unexpectedly came to like each other a little bit so, during the weeks leading up to the inauguration, at Kennedy’s invitation, Eisenhower intensely advised his eager and anxious 43-year-old successor.
On January 17, 1961, three days before inauguration ceremonies, Eisenhower gave a notable and now-prophetic farewell speech in which he looked into the future, warning Americans about the dangers of putting partisanship above national interest, the risks of deficit spending, the expansion of the military-industrial complex and the growing influence of special interest groups on government officials.
Baier demonstrates Ike’s model of principled and collaborative leadership. Eisenhower had reluctantly stepped into politics after serving as the Supreme Commander of Allied Forces in World War II. He had successfully directed the United States out of the police action in Korea and guided the nation through a Soviet nuclear threat. One of the greatest economic growth expansions in history occurred during his eight years in office. Through it all, Eisenhower had remained an honorable and upstanding leader.
“Three Days in January” is a must read for aficionados of Eisenhower and for those fascinated by presidential history. It is a well-researched book full of fascinating facts and context. Eisenhower’s complete inaugural address is printed in the appendix. Few readers will escape comparing Ike’s prescient statements with the political theater of our time.