Scan barcode
vendea's review against another edition
This is certainly a thoroughly researched and, I think, well-written book.
Under the very specific set of circumstances I was in, I finished it in about 4 days. Under different circumstances I think it would have been a slog and I might not have finished it. Be warned, if you choose to read it, that it is a pretty dense read.
I struggle to evaluate this book on scholarly merits, however, because I simply feel like I don't know enough. I do find frustration in how easily this period is treated with hindsight = 20/20. Which is not intended to excuse objectively bad actions... but. Still. There is some irony in being able to see how everything happened and then calmly pointing out the bad decisions.
As an example, I'll use the vast difference between the East Berlin uprising and the Hungary uprising - in the beginning, the position of "don't arm the Berliners because we'll contribute to more deaths" is presented as sympathetic (to say nothing of the utter millions of deaths that happened anyway, but I digress) whereas by the end the position of "don't help or arm the Hungarians" is presented as antagonistic. By the end of the book the US/CIA is being excoriated for "doing nothing in practical terms" to bring about the rollback of the USSR. After the majority of the preceding amount of the book shows all the practical things done coming to naught.
Now, I'll say that, personally, having read this book, it guts me that the United States didn't come to the aid of Hungary (and by extension, the rest of the eastern bloc at that point). The way Romania was initially overthrown also guts me. The whole of the Vietnam war guts me. I could go on. So I want to make it clear that I'm not particularly choosing a side for how these two responses to popular uprisings were presented by the author. I'm mainly just trying to point out the inconsistency.
Inconsistency which, of course, can be explained by the vastly different circumstances that the two uprisings happened in, I suppose? But I would argue that this leads back to my central point of hindsight being 20/20 and nuance being incredibly important (and, in my opinion, a bit neglected by this author) here.
I think that part of the big issue I had with this was the perceived (by me) lack of nuance in some of the occurrences discussed here. Now, the author is trying to showcase the misfortune - tragic misfortune - of the CIA and the four main characters of this book. I cannot, therefore, strictly fault the author for failing to include some things that I wish he had, since those would have detracted from his ability to paint such a tight picture of that tragedy.
Yet, I was (again) frustrated with the one-sidedness here. No allowance was given to how difficult it was for a new and unproven intelligence agency to not only be suddenly cutting its teeth in the Cold War, but doing so against an enemy that already had an entrenched spy and double agent network, having established that in WWII and merely needing to change objectives without changing people or tactics. How /do/ you break into a network that a Kim Philby is a part of?
It just turned out to be a very draining book is what I think I'm trying to get at. The only things told are the failures - the Kim Philbys, the information poorly handled by the FBI/Sen. McCarthy, the WiN hoaxes, the myriad agents dropped in who were immediately scooped up by the Stasi / KGB / AVH / what have you secret police of whichever satellite state the unfortunates ended up in. Do you want your faith in humanity trampled into splinters? Read this book. It's almost worse because this doesn't even get into the atrocities of the Stalin and related regimes. It's just a third person view of not being able to stop them.
Under the very specific set of circumstances I was in, I finished it in about 4 days. Under different circumstances I think it would have been a slog and I might not have finished it. Be warned, if you choose to read it, that it is a pretty dense read.
I struggle to evaluate this book on scholarly merits, however, because I simply feel like I don't know enough. I do find frustration in how easily this period is treated with hindsight = 20/20. Which is not intended to excuse objectively bad actions... but. Still. There is some irony in being able to see how everything happened and then calmly pointing out the bad decisions.
As an example, I'll use the vast difference between the East Berlin uprising and the Hungary uprising - in the beginning, the position of "don't arm the Berliners because we'll contribute to more deaths" is presented as sympathetic (to say nothing of the utter millions of deaths that happened anyway, but I digress) whereas by the end the position of "don't help or arm the Hungarians" is presented as antagonistic. By the end of the book the US/CIA is being excoriated for "doing nothing in practical terms" to bring about the rollback of the USSR. After the majority of the preceding amount of the book shows all the practical things done coming to naught.
Now, I'll say that, personally, having read this book, it guts me that the United States didn't come to the aid of Hungary (and by extension, the rest of the eastern bloc at that point). The way Romania was initially overthrown also guts me. The whole of the Vietnam war guts me. I could go on. So I want to make it clear that I'm not particularly choosing a side for how these two responses to popular uprisings were presented by the author. I'm mainly just trying to point out the inconsistency.
Inconsistency which, of course, can be explained by the vastly different circumstances that the two uprisings happened in, I suppose? But I would argue that this leads back to my central point of hindsight being 20/20 and nuance being incredibly important (and, in my opinion, a bit neglected by this author) here.
I think that part of the big issue I had with this was the perceived (by me) lack of nuance in some of the occurrences discussed here. Now, the author is trying to showcase the misfortune - tragic misfortune - of the CIA and the four main characters of this book. I cannot, therefore, strictly fault the author for failing to include some things that I wish he had, since those would have detracted from his ability to paint such a tight picture of that tragedy.
Yet, I was (again) frustrated with the one-sidedness here. No allowance was given to how difficult it was for a new and unproven intelligence agency to not only be suddenly cutting its teeth in the Cold War, but doing so against an enemy that already had an entrenched spy and double agent network, having established that in WWII and merely needing to change objectives without changing people or tactics. How /do/ you break into a network that a Kim Philby is a part of?
It just turned out to be a very draining book is what I think I'm trying to get at. The only things told are the failures - the Kim Philbys, the information poorly handled by the FBI/Sen. McCarthy, the WiN hoaxes, the myriad agents dropped in who were immediately scooped up by the Stasi / KGB / AVH / what have you secret police of whichever satellite state the unfortunates ended up in. Do you want your faith in humanity trampled into splinters? Read this book. It's almost worse because this doesn't even get into the atrocities of the Stalin and related regimes. It's just a third person view of not being able to stop them.
the_history_shelf's review
5.0
Check out my full book review on The BookBrowse Review here:
https://www.bookbrowse.com/mag/reviews/index.cfm/ref/pr267264
https://www.bookbrowse.com/mag/reviews/index.cfm/ref/pr267264
stevenyenzer's review
3.0
I feel bad but as much as I enjoyed this, I could not tell you much about the four spies of the title. For some reason these figures just didn't stand out to me.
bhurlbut's review
4.0
A deep dive into the early years of the Cold War wouldn’t usually grab or keep my attention fir long. However, Scott Anderson harnesses his tale to four unique personalities who had key roles in some important milestones. Anderson’s thesis is that those crucial years, and the early history of the CIA, set the stage for many domestic and foreign divisions that color our word today.
carlylottsofbookz's review
2.0
Really couldn’t get into this. It would have been easier to follow (for me) had it been a straight four sections devoted to each man. Instead it was told chronologically, but jumped back and forth—Washington, Berlin, Philippines, Soviet Union, Vietnam, repeat and shuffle.
fkshg8465's review against another edition
informative
mysterious
tense
slow-paced
3.0
This was interesting to read but I had to put it down often. It's too dense and tedious. Would've been better as multiple volumes, perhaps. I also prefer historical books to keep a linear timeline, but this one did jump back and forth a bit too much for me.
Content Warnings
Graphic: Kidnapping, Mental illness, Car accident, Xenophobia, Suicide, Cancer, Homophobia, and War
mikehex's review
4.0
A really informative take not just on the four featured spies but a good general overview of the entire worlds politics between the end of WW2 and the beginning of the Vietnam War.
Anderson definitely has a bias in his reporting of that time and these people, but he backs it up with evidence but direct and indirect.
Anderson definitely has a bias in his reporting of that time and these people, but he backs it up with evidence but direct and indirect.
michalski19's review against another edition
challenging
inspiring
slow-paced
5.0
The best history books gave an honest assessment of events - not always the case when it comes to American history. Anderson has written a phenomenal book and his examination of the OSS (and then CIA) during WWII through the Cold War is nothing short of impressive. Hindsight is always 20/20 and if more decision makers understood real history like Anderson writes, the world would be a different place.
glennmiller5309's review
5.0
Excellent overview of the early years of the CIA, from its predecessor's (OSS) founding during World War II through its failed responses to the Hungarian Revolution and Suez Canal Crisis of 1956. Anderson masterfully tells of the organization's exploits during these years through the experiences of four key leaders: Frank Wisner, Peter Sichel, Ed Lansdale, and Michael Burke. While these four are the starring players in this book, Cold Warriors are featured throughout, including Wild Bill Donovan, the Dulles brothers, McCarthy and Cohn, and J. Edgar Hoover. Excellently researched and crafted, this is stay-up-late, page-turning history.
amandasgrowingtbr's review
Might go back to this book but currently am just not in the mood to read.