Not as good as Baier's other "Three Days" books, but about an oft-unmentioned topic: the Tehran Conference. Baier tries hard to make the Tehran Conference the turning point of the Second World War, which it could be, but he tries to make it more important than the Yalta Conference, which it wasn't. Half the book is a biographical review of F.D.R.'s life, which is good (though full-length biographies are better). You can read about the Tehran Conference in any good bio of Roosevelt, Churchill, and/or Stalin, but, this is a good recapitulation of the conference. I learned some things (or didn't remember I remembered them). Still, a pretty good book. ( )

I was very disappointed with THREE DAYS AT THE BRINK BY BRET BAIER. To me it seemed like a repeat of all the bio's of Roosevelt's, which is not what I wanted to read about. Over half of the book deals with the private/public live of FDR, not of the conference in Tehran. ( )

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 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 love historical novels both fiction and nonfiction, though I rarely have a chance to read nonfiction. It took me a long time to want to read nonfiction after years of forced reading in school. Therefore, I can honestly say that I am not a scholar and read now entirely for enjoyment and I enjoyed reading Three Days at the Brink, by Bret Baier. It was a thoughtful, through and in-depth look at FDR.
Going in I thought this book would be mainly about the Tehran Conference, it was that and so much more. The first of the book covers FDR’s childhood, his rise through the political ranks and to the presidency. The remainder of the book focuses on his presidency through WWII. There was a lot of focus on how he “charmed” both Churchill and Stalin.
Though FDR was not perfect, he was an outstanding statesman. He was the right person at the right time and he was instrumental in the success of the Tehran Conference. I thought Mr. Baier made an honest attempt to present FDR as factual as possible and it made for a fascinating story.
A well written and researched book than any history buff would love to own, and it would make an excellent addition to any collector's WWII archive.
I received a free copy from the publisher in exchange for an honest review. ( )