History

Eight Days at Yalta: How Churchill, Roosevelt, and Stalin Shaped the Post-War World

Eight Days at Yalta: How Churchill, Roosevelt, and Stalin Shaped the Post-War World

  • Downloads：6534
  • Type：Epub+TxT+PDF+Mobi
  • Create Date：2021-04-07 09:52:06
  • Update Date：2025-09-06
  • Status：finish
  • Author：Diana Preston
  • ISBN：080214859X
  • Environment：PC/Android/iPhone/iPad/Kindle
  • Download

Summary

While some of the last battles of WWII were being fought， U。S。 President Franklin Roosevelt， British Prime Minister Winston Churchill， and Soviet Premier Joseph Stalin--the so-called "Big Three"--met from February 4-11， 1945， in the Crimean resort town of Yalta。 Over eight days of bargaining， bombast， and intermittent bonhomie， while Soviet soldiers and NKVD men patrolled the grounds of the three palaces occupied by their delegations， they decided， among other things， on the endgame of the war against Nazi Germany and how a defeated and occupied Germany should be governed， on the constitution of the nascent United Nations， on the price of Soviet entry into the war against Japan， on the new borders of Poland， and on spheres of influence elsewhere in Eastern Europe， the Balkans， and Greece。 With the deep insight of a skilled historian， drawing on the memorable accounts of those who were there--from the leaders and high level advisors such as Averell Harriman， Anthony Eden， and Andrei Gromyko， to Churchill's clear-eyed secretary Marian Holmes and FDR's insightful daughter Anna Boettiger--Diana Preston has， on the 75th anniversary of this historic event， crafted a masterful and vivid chronicle of the conference that created the post-war world， out of which came decisions that still resonate loudly today。

Ever since， who "won" Yalta has been debated。 Three months after the conference， Roosevelt was dead， and right after Germany's surrender， Churchill wrote to the new president， Harry Truman， of "an iron curtain" that was now "drawn upon [the Soviets'] front。" Knowing his troops controlled eastern Europe， Stalin's judgment in April 1945 thus speaks volumes: "Whoever occupies a territory also imposes on it his own social system。"

Download

Reviews

Christian Dibblee ，

I feel this book offers a ready narrative but very little analysis。 It’s fun to feel yourself in the rooms with the Big Three。 But otherwise， the author doesn’t tell us much that we don’t already know。 One review described this as “an anniversary book” published only to remind readers of a previously explored historical event。 I agree and ended the book without much greater knowledge about Yalta。Another note - the writing isn’t very good。 This might be an editing problem or a use of British conv I feel this book offers a ready narrative but very little analysis。 It’s fun to feel yourself in the rooms with the Big Three。 But otherwise， the author doesn’t tell us much that we don’t already know。 One review described this as “an anniversary book” published only to remind readers of a previously explored historical event。 I agree and ended the book without much greater knowledge about Yalta。Another note - the writing isn’t very good。 This might be an editing problem or a use of British conventions， but I re-read many sentences and found a verb missing。 Or at the very least， a comma placed improperly （or not at all）。 It definitely took away from my enjoyment of the book。 。。。more

Rosalie ，

2。5/5

Oliver ，

It had some very good and interesting facts about Yalta。 My favorite fact was about how the Soviets were able to dominate Poland because of their military presence there。

Peires ，

Nothing wrong with this book， but nothing new either， except maybe the dinner menus。

Ian Headon ，

This is terrific stuff - she captures both the macro perspective of these 3 leaders carving up the the post war world， but also the micro details of the inedible food， the “inadequate” bathroom arrangements and various other indignities。 She also paints the savagery of WW2 as a backdrop - thoroughly recommended

Susan ，

Excellent， fast read。 The stamina required just to travel to Yalta is mind boggling as were the conditions under which FDR， Churchill and staff resided once there。 Concise， well-written summary and assessment of the negotiations that took place and the ways in which Yalta shaped world events right up to the Brexit vote。

David Blake ，

Excellent detailed recap of one the most important events of the 20th century。 But lengthy run-on sentences made it difficult to follow at times。

Rowena Abdul Razak ，

A decent historical account of the debates and events of the Yalta conference。 A personal and political history。 I particularly liked the discussion on what happened after and how Yalta laid the foundations of a divided Europe。

Monica Bond-Lamberty ，

I am a fan of Diana Preston。 She write the history of events with details that I appreciate。 Sure not everyone wants to know about bedbugs or menus but I found them to be interesting anecdotes。I also teach history so love these little anecdotes to give students a sense of a time and place （though probably won't mention specific menus， but rather the incongruity of communist governments eating all the caviar they wanted but not having good water）。I enjoyed this micro-history （like her Boxer Rebel I am a fan of Diana Preston。 She write the history of events with details that I appreciate。 Sure not everyone wants to know about bedbugs or menus but I found them to be interesting anecdotes。I also teach history so love these little anecdotes to give students a sense of a time and place （though probably won't mention specific menus， but rather the incongruity of communist governments eating all the caviar they wanted but not having good water）。I enjoyed this micro-history （like her Boxer Rebellion history） - an up close and not always flattering picture of the players and events。 It was supremely readable （to me， again a history teacher） and was even a "break" for me from reading a history of xenophobia in the US （which is a little too close to home these days）。I appreciate that Preston sticks to just the facts， but I would have liked a little more conjecture of what could have happened like she does at the end。 Were people not doing their homework for this important meeting？ Did Roosevelt have a stronger hand to play and simply didn't take advantage of it to the detriment of millions？ 。。。more

Tanya ，

This book had two components: a day-by-day narrative of what went down during those eight days Churchill， FDR， and Stalin met at Yalta， and an analysis of what their agreement meant for the world。 The itinerary chapters， complete with what they ate for meals， lots of passages from aides' journals， and discussion of the Russian palaces in which the "Big Three" were housed， got tiring。 I don't care that much about the mundane details of that decisive week。The analysis， however， matters a lot。 I wa This book had two components: a day-by-day narrative of what went down during those eight days Churchill， FDR， and Stalin met at Yalta， and an analysis of what their agreement meant for the world。 The itinerary chapters， complete with what they ate for meals， lots of passages from aides' journals， and discussion of the Russian palaces in which the "Big Three" were housed， got tiring。 I don't care that much about the mundane details of that decisive week。The analysis， however， matters a lot。 I was especially intrigued by Preston's assertion that， had the conference taken place the previous summer as originally planned， the United States and UK would have been in a much stronger bargaining position。 By February 1945 the Soviet armies had already occupied much of Eastern Europe， and were only miles from Berlin。 Churchill and Roosevelt were so concerned that these Eastern countries， particularly Poland， have self-determined new governments， but this was impossible to implement when Communist Russia had on-site authority。Another major objective at the conference was Russia's agreement to declare war on Japan。 Up until this point the two countries had a mutual non-aggression pact in force。 Prognosticators forecast that it would take another 2 years for America to completely defeat Japan， and counted on Russia opening a far eastern front against Hirohito。 Interestingly， the date chosen for Russia to attack Japan was August 8， so the hurried atomic attack on Hiroshima on August 6 was clearly an attempt to preclude the Soviets from joining the war， and thus obviate the need to keep promises made in return。 Stalin quickly moved troops into the Korean Peninsula and some far northern Japanese islands before the Japanese surrendered on August 15。 As a result， a Communist foothold in the Koreas was established， leading the next decade to the Korean War。Eight Days at Yalta gave me more insights into the unique personalities of Winston Churchill， Franklin Delano Roosevelt， and Joseph Stalin。 I'm glad I read it， even though the middle of the book dragged a bit。 3。5 stars。 。。。more

Chris Aylott ，

Preston's history of the Yalta Conference doesn't offer much analysis， but it does provide insight in its almost hour-by-hour recounting of events。 Based on that， it's hard to see Yalta as anything other than a disaster for the United States and the United Kingdom。 Stalin came in with a strong hand and played it well; Roosevelt and Churchill played weak hands badly and patted themselves on their backs afterwards。 I'm not sure how much fault we can place on them for the outcome， especially Roosev Preston's history of the Yalta Conference doesn't offer much analysis， but it does provide insight in its almost hour-by-hour recounting of events。 Based on that， it's hard to see Yalta as anything other than a disaster for the United States and the United Kingdom。 Stalin came in with a strong hand and played it well; Roosevelt and Churchill played weak hands badly and patted themselves on their backs afterwards。 I'm not sure how much fault we can place on them for the outcome， especially Roosevelt， who was a dying man trying to build a new world organization in the ashes of Europe。 But in 20/20 hindsight， this quote from Churchill verges on unforgivable:On 23 February Churchill told more junior members of his administration， 'Poor Neville Chamberlain believed he could trust Hitler。 He was wrong。 But I don't think I'm wrong about Stalin。'Deep-Voiced Narrator Spoiler: Churchill was wrong。 。。。more

Kerry Pickens ，

This book is interesting today in light of the subject of racism towards Jews as well as Asians。 Churchill was in fact very racist towards Asians， and had no interest in changing that behavior。 Stalin and Roosevelt were plotting behind Churchill's back even though he was the one responsible for rallying the other countries to defeat the Nazi invasion。 None of these leaders really come off as being angels。 This book is interesting today in light of the subject of racism towards Jews as well as Asians。 Churchill was in fact very racist towards Asians， and had no interest in changing that behavior。 Stalin and Roosevelt were plotting behind Churchill's back even though he was the one responsible for rallying the other countries to defeat the Nazi invasion。 None of these leaders really come off as being angels。 。。。more

Jim Kile ，

This book took me a long time to get through despite the focused subject matter and size。 The information tended toward the superficial in many cases。 The documentary aspect of the book leaves no doubt that the author made use of several first-person sources （in diaries， etc。） to ensure an accurate account of the Yalta conference between Roosevelt， Churchill， and Stalin in early 1945。 It does open a slight window into the personalities of Roosevelt and Churchill; Stalin remains somewhat opaque i This book took me a long time to get through despite the focused subject matter and size。 The information tended toward the superficial in many cases。 The documentary aspect of the book leaves no doubt that the author made use of several first-person sources （in diaries， etc。） to ensure an accurate account of the Yalta conference between Roosevelt， Churchill， and Stalin in early 1945。 It does open a slight window into the personalities of Roosevelt and Churchill; Stalin remains somewhat opaque in the narrative。 Real analysis， though， does not take place until the aftermath chapter， and it seems like it may have been an afterthought。 One thing that slowed me down was the frequently awkward wordings and sentence structure — missing commas， fragmented sentences， grammar issues， etc。 It seemed like the editor gave up in several chapters。 From a content standpoint， it was worth the read。 。。。more

Kensey ，

Not impressed。 If you want to know whether Churchill liked Roosevelt's ties， then this is the book for you。 Not impressed。 If you want to know whether Churchill liked Roosevelt's ties， then this is the book for you。 。。。more

Moritz Mueller-Freitag ，

Negotiations， like poker games， hinge on the quality of your hand and how you play it。 At Yalta， Stalin had the best hand and played it ruthlessly。 Preston’s prose is crisp yet doesn’t offer much depth or new insight。 But what a great cover！

Asher Isbrucker ，

I’d never heard of the Yalta conference before reading this book。 In the history of the second World War， there are many events more compelling than three old farts eating caviar and making empty promises with their fingers crossed behind their backs。 At the end of each chapter， Preston reminds us what’s happening on the battlefields in the European and Pacific theatres as the Big Three convene for plenary sessions。 But as this book illustrates， the geopolitical consequences of war are often det I’d never heard of the Yalta conference before reading this book。 In the history of the second World War， there are many events more compelling than three old farts eating caviar and making empty promises with their fingers crossed behind their backs。 At the end of each chapter， Preston reminds us what’s happening on the battlefields in the European and Pacific theatres as the Big Three convene for plenary sessions。 But as this book illustrates， the geopolitical consequences of war are often determined in lavish rooms between verbose toasts to the grandeur of foreign leaders。 Over eight days in early 1945， Roosevelt， Churchill and Stalin determined the final chess moves that would bring an end to World War Two， and the beginning of the world after it。 It was the latter that most of their discussions focused on。 Churchill struggled to ensure an ensuing and whole British Empire， making a back alley deal with Stalin regarding the former’s interests in Greece。 Roosevelt’s primary concerns were ensuring the Soviet entry into the Pacific war with Japan at minimal cost （Stalin had demands）， and the establishment of the United Nations to ensure a lasting peace。 Stalin enjoyed a home-turf advantage， and felt he was owed favours by his counterparts。 The Soviets had spilled the most blood of the three powers， and as such felt， justifiably， that they were due the most reparations， and wanted to ensure that such an invasion as they had suffered at the hands of Germany could not happen again。 The biggest sticking point of the conference was the fate of Poland。 The Soviets had their own plans， with a puppet government in place， to install a sympathetic regime。 In their view， having been invaded twice by Germany through Poland， the country was a doorway to the Soviet Union through which aggressors could easily pounce。 So they insisted on having a “say” in its governance。 Churchill and Roosevelt， the former hosting a Polish government-in-exile in London， were insistent on free elections and a democratic Polish government。 This is not an “exciting” book of war history， but Preston does an excellent job at making such a dry subject interesting。 Her descriptions of the day-to-day activities of the conference （the meals， the toasts， the strange accommodations）， the social dynamics， and the firsthand accounts of the behaviour of the three leaders all help ground and pace the plenary sessions and abstract geopolitics。 。。。more

Linda ，

Intense coverage of the meeting at Yalta， beginning with the reason for the meeting， and ending with the aftermath。 Well researched and descriptive， with excerpts from the diaries and records of the people in attendance。

James ，

A very well written book with fabulous detail。 However， very dense。 Overall a fabulous read

Wallace Mckenzie ，

different perspectives

Karol ，

A good read， well researched but a bit one sided in that sources on the Soviet team are far fewer in volume than the British +American side（s）。

Alin Mureşan ，

A pleasant read， well written， but it is quite obvious that it is stretched。 The subject itself is probably no more than half of the book， so Preston makes up by going into arguably too many details about matters of secondary importance。 All in all， pretty good。

Scott ，

For far too many modern writers， '"Yalta" is invoked as a simplistic example of their perspective。 For those of a jingoistic sort， "Yalta" is the equivalent of Neville Chamberlain's appeasement of Adolf Hitler， only this time with U。S。 President Franklin Delano Roosevelt rolling over for Josef Stalin。 Others use "Yalta" as an example of how FDR failed to understand the Soviet Union or its leader， or perhaps FDR's naivete。 And still others use "Yalta" as the turning point in the collapse of the B For far too many modern writers， '"Yalta" is invoked as a simplistic example of their perspective。 For those of a jingoistic sort， "Yalta" is the equivalent of Neville Chamberlain's appeasement of Adolf Hitler， only this time with U。S。 President Franklin Delano Roosevelt rolling over for Josef Stalin。 Others use "Yalta" as an example of how FDR failed to understand the Soviet Union or its leader， or perhaps FDR's naivete。 And still others use "Yalta" as the turning point in the collapse of the British Empire 。 。 。 simply because by Yalta， Britain was too exhausted to do anything in opposition to either the U。S。 or the Soviet Union。With "Eight Days at Yalta，" Diana Preston attempts to refocus the debate on what actually happened at Yalta， the epic diplomatic session between "the Big Three" = FDR， Churchill， and Stalin in early February 1945。 Preston seeks to put the reader back into the time period with the perspective of each leader。 Churchill was representing the country that had fought longest against Nazi Germany。 FDR represented the Western Country that was not only essential to defeating Hitler but was also facing the prospect of having to invade the Japanese homeland 。 。 。 at the cost of hundreds of thousands of American military casualties （if not more）。 And the A-Bomb was not yet proven。 And Stalin represented the country that may have lost more than any other in World War II with well over 25 million dead。Writing with an historian's reserve and with some judiciousness （this book could easily have exceeded 1，000 pages， but clocks in well below 400 pages， including index）， Preston reminds the reader that the Big Three needed each other， desperately。 FDR needed Stalin to declare war against Japan， both to isolate Japan and also to prevent Japan from reallocating military resources to oppose the American invasion。 FDR needed Churchill to help build his vision of a United Nations securing post-WWII global peace。 Stalin needed FDR and Churchill to keep the pressure on Germany from the West。 Churchill needed both Stalin and FDR to win the war before Britain collapsed from exhaustion 。 。 。。 and he wanted their help in preserving the British Empire。And even though by early February 1945 it looked like Germany was toast， nothing was certain。 Hitler held out hope that the Alliance he was fighting would collapse and he would somehow be able to stave off defeat。 And the Big Three did not trust each other。 Stalin was afraid that the West would cut a separate deal with Hitler， for example。 At Yalta， great decisions were made that defined the second half of the 20th century 。 。 。 far too many to list here。 Preston does a great service by remaining somewhat aloof in terms of favorites among the Big Three。 Not all historians do this - for a different perspective， read Nigel Hamilton's recent "War and Peace，" Volume III of his very pro-FDR WWII biography in which Hamilton all but accuses Churchill of trying to lose the war。 Preston is more even-handed， but does make pointed observations about how Stalin used Churchill's unyielding devotion to the British Empire as a justification for building the Soviet Empire's network of satellite states， including but not limited to Poland and the Baltic states。 This is complex stuff。 Preston ultimately agrees with FDR's assessment - to paraphrase， "I never said the agreement at Yalta was good。 I said it was the best that I could do。" The Yalta agreements did lead to the victory of the Big Three in WWII， but it also led to the Cold War。 As someone said， history is complicated。 Preston's book is a reminder that Yalta should probably only be used as short-hand for that sentiment。 Highly recommended。 。。。more

Edward Sullivan ，

An exceptionally well-written， vividly detailed， incisive behind-the-scenes account of the difficult and contentious negotiations between Churchill， Roosevelt， Stalin， and their staff that would set the stage for the Cold War。

Randall Harrison ，

This is a compelling history， rich in detail and nuance。 Preston gets to the heart of the matter and illustrates convincingly why Roosevelt and Churchill were not able to "save" Eastern Europe with the agreements reached at Yalta。 Her sketches of the individuals involved on all three sides of the conference are well-researched and compelling; they contribute greatly to the overall narrative。 The epilogue provides a cogent， well-conceived summary of the good， the bad and the unaccomplished at the This is a compelling history， rich in detail and nuance。 Preston gets to the heart of the matter and illustrates convincingly why Roosevelt and Churchill were not able to "save" Eastern Europe with the agreements reached at Yalta。 Her sketches of the individuals involved on all three sides of the conference are well-researched and compelling; they contribute greatly to the overall narrative。 The epilogue provides a cogent， well-conceived summary of the good， the bad and the unaccomplished at the conference。 I highly recommend this book for those with interest in WWII and diplomatic history， as well as a primer on the genesis of the Cold War。 。。。more

Scott ，

The history is familiar to all of us。 What this book brings us is a near-gossipy day-to-day and a deep insight into Roosevelt and Churchill -- their goals， their strengths， their foibles， their failure to evaluate Stalin correctly。 Especially important is the "afterwards" chapters， where Preston shows Yalta cause and consequence， and talks very intelligently about what other results could have occured with slightly different decisions。In all， I was shocked how 2 really intelligent men negotiated The history is familiar to all of us。 What this book brings us is a near-gossipy day-to-day and a deep insight into Roosevelt and Churchill -- their goals， their strengths， their foibles， their failure to evaluate Stalin correctly。 Especially important is the "afterwards" chapters， where Preston shows Yalta cause and consequence， and talks very intelligently about what other results could have occured with slightly different decisions。In all， I was shocked how 2 really intelligent men negotiated with blinders on， and how one paranoid obsessive got exactly what he wanted， lying along without qualms。 Major international negotiations protect Presidents from their blindness and ignorance by bringing in cynical professionals-- 1 day or 3 day sitdowns with， say， North Korea， by untalented leadership is a recipe for disaster and embarrassment。 。。。more

Ionia ，

First of all， what a great cover--It truly does represent the tense situations described in this book well。 Secondly， the book is just as great， especially if you are someone who is interested in WWII history and these important historical figures。 The author did a tremendous job of researching and writing this illuminating book。 It is not dry or boring as so many historical non-fiction works can be。 I stayed up late two nights in a row reading this book because I found it so fascinating that I First of all， what a great cover--It truly does represent the tense situations described in this book well。 Secondly， the book is just as great， especially if you are someone who is interested in WWII history and these important historical figures。 The author did a tremendous job of researching and writing this illuminating book。 It is not dry or boring as so many historical non-fiction works can be。 I stayed up late two nights in a row reading this book because I found it so fascinating that I didn't want to put it down。 From reading this， you get more than a brief glimpse into the world of the main players and decision-makers。 You almost feel， upon finishing this book， that you have come to know these people privately。 I actually forgot for a while that these events transpired many years before。 The author was so good at including her readers in the story， that I felt like I was right there with the group， struggling to get my point of view in there somewhere。 （I couldn't quite pull off the Stalin moustache though， sadly。） This is an excellent book that elaborates on many basic facts that have been proferred by other researchers and authors。 Definitely worth the time to read。 This review is based on a complimentary copy from the publisher， provided through Netgalley， all opinions are my own。 。。。more

Brian Williams ，

This is a day-by-day account of the February 1945 conference of the soon-to-be victorious Allied Powers of WW2。 U。S。 President Franklin Roosevelt， British Prime Minister Churchill and Russian Marshall and dictator Joseph Stalin participated in the conference。 （French General de Gaulle was expressly excluded from the conference。） It was the second summit meeting of the trio， following their meeting in Tehran in 1943。 After considerable back-and-forth amongst the principals， Yalta in the Crimea， w This is a day-by-day account of the February 1945 conference of the soon-to-be victorious Allied Powers of WW2。 U。S。 President Franklin Roosevelt， British Prime Minister Churchill and Russian Marshall and dictator Joseph Stalin participated in the conference。 （French General de Gaulle was expressly excluded from the conference。） It was the second summit meeting of the trio， following their meeting in Tehran in 1943。 After considerable back-and-forth amongst the principals， Yalta in the Crimea， which had recently been liberated from Nazi occupation， was the chosen site。 It was an arduous journey for Roosevelt and Churchill， and a long train ride for Stalin。Each of the leaders came to the conference with a "wish list" for the agenda。 For example， Churchill wanted to preserve the world affairs role of Britain and the British Empire as much as possible。 Stalin on the other hand was the most determined （and best-prepared） of the three; he wanted to protect the Russian western borders by surrounding Russia with subordinate buffer states under Soviet control。 Roosevelt in obvious poor health wanted to get the UN established and get the Soviets into the war in the Pacific to defeat Japan。 Each succeeded to a significant degree and in the author's view， Stalin achieved the most: he had a strong hand， with Russian troops pushing into Germany and closing in on occupying Berlin。 The exclusion of the de Gaulle from the conference was an issue for the Soviets but Britain wanted France as a buffer between it and Europe。 The French general showed little or no gratitude for Churchill's strong support。 Eventually Stalin relented to the extent that France was given a zone within Germany during the Allied Occupation。"Eight Days at Yalta" is an informative narrative history， with plenty of anecdotes。 （Bathroom facilities were in short supply at Yalta。） Diaries and memoirs are the source of significant amounts of the story。 It's an entertaining read， a comprehensive overview of the Conference， uncluttered by detailed footnotes。 The source notes and bibliography at the end of the book are helpful。 I enjoyed having the several maps at the beginning of the book。 Occasionally amusing， it focuses on the people: the list of attendees made for convenient reference as the narrative progressed。 The author includes as a tag end to this book， commentary about the Potsdam conference implicitly suggesting it was unimportant。 By the time Potsdam ended two of the three participants had been replaced: Churchill by Attlee and Roosevelt by Truman。 Potsdam， more than Yalta set the tone for future developments， and the Cold War， although decisions made at Yalta were more consequential。 This book can serve as a good segue for a book focusing on Potsdam， such as Michael Neiberg's excellent "Potsdam: the End of World War II and the Remaking of Europe"。Recommended: "Eight Days at Yalta" is a good basic introductory text to the Yalta Conference， with a strong focus on the personalities involved。NOTE: I requested and received an advance reading copy of this book from the publisher， Atlantic Monthly， via Netgalley。 The comments about it are my own。 I appreciate the opportunity to review the book。 。。。more

Karyn ，

The big three at Yalta。“Whoever occupies a territory also imposes on it his own social system。”~ Stalin， April 1945“The problems of victory are more agreeable than those of defeat， but they are no less difficult。”~ Churchill “I didn’t say the result was good。 I said it was the best I could do。”~ Roosevelt

Alberto ，

Very superficial。 Instead of analysis of the issues raised at Yalta， we get in depth discussion of the dinner menus。 She seems to have access to journals and other primary sources but uses them only to provide secretaries’ impressions as tourists and junior officials’ difficulties in accessing bathroom facilities。 Alger Hiss is mentioned in all of two sentences。 The Morgentheau plan is discussed only cursorily。 Instead she provides lengthy digressions into the history of Poland and the discovery Very superficial。 Instead of analysis of the issues raised at Yalta， we get in depth discussion of the dinner menus。 She seems to have access to journals and other primary sources but uses them only to provide secretaries’ impressions as tourists and junior officials’ difficulties in accessing bathroom facilities。 Alger Hiss is mentioned in all of two sentences。 The Morgentheau plan is discussed only cursorily。 Instead she provides lengthy digressions into the history of Poland and the discovery of fission。 。。。more

Adam ，

DNF。 Too dense and boring。 Really wanted to keep going， but I couldn't care less about what food they ate， get down to business damn it！ DNF。 Too dense and boring。 Really wanted to keep going， but I couldn't care less about what food they ate， get down to business damn it！ 。。。more

Reference

google book https://www.google.com/search?tbm=bks&q=Eight Days at Yalta: How Churchill, Roosevelt, and Stalin Shaped the Post-War World

hathitrust digital library https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/ls?q1=Eight Days at Yalta: How Churchill, Roosevelt, and Stalin Shaped the Post-War World&field1=ocr&a=srchls&ft=ft&lmt=ft

The British Library https://bll01.primo.exlibrisgroup.com/discovery/search?query=any,contains,Eight Days at Yalta: How Churchill, Roosevelt, and Stalin Shaped the Post-War World&tab=LibraryCatalog&search_scope=Not_BL_Suppress&vid=44BL_INST:BLL01&lang=en&offset=0