Customer Reviews

Faust's Metropolis: A History of Berlin

5 star:		(10)
4 star:		(7)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(5)
1 star:		(1)

 

 

This book, despite its length, was a compelling read, almost a page-turner. Seldom does it lag. The author writes well, and researched the book thoroughly. She has an eye for the ironies of German history--one of the greatest being the Slavic origins of the German capital, one of the many facts of the German past which Hitler suppressed. As a scion of the von Moltke family, she has some special insights to offer, and occasionally throws in a reflection on an ancestor or a bit of her own experience as a former Berlin resident. (It would have been nice to know a bit more of her own history, since she often chimes in with pieces of it.) As a good history should, this one reflects on the future, too--and the transcedent question of the meaning of Berlin as the once and future deutsche Hauptstadt. As a German-American, I have read many books of German history, but this is clearly one of the best. It is full of new insights, and very cleverly uses Berlin itself as a ! prism through which to view German history. It dispels the myth of the "typical Berliner"--given Berlin's relatively short history, most Berliners, even the famous ones, have reasonably short heritages in the city, and many came to Berlin from other parts of Germany or Europe--while presenting a fairly empathetic picture of the terrible times which Berliners have faced--including the post-WWI starvation and hyperflation, the Hitler tyranny, the ruthless Russian conquest, the oppression of the Russian occupation and the hope of the Berlin Airlift, the tragic division caused by the erection of die Schandemauer, and the heroic attempts at escape, culminating in the joy of November 9, 1989, when the wall came down. I can wholeheartedly recommend this work to anyone interested in modern Germany or modern European history.

It is a sad commentary on today's book market that this could be published; surely the most poorly edited major book I have seen in years. Leaving aside content for a moment, we have numerous spelling and grammatical errors. There is inconsistent capitalization of terms throughout. In the author's section on WWII she ascribes the infamous Moscow July 1944 parade of German POW's as containing some 350,000 captured Germans. Two pages later it is 60,000 (it was actually 57,600 and change). She has no concept of the distinction between a Soviet 'front' and an 'army' or 'army group'. She speaks of Rokossovsky's role in the 'race' for and Battle for Berlin in April 1945 when Rokossovsky's Front was in action well to the north of the city. It is well known the 'race' was between Zhukov and Konev--hence Stalin's famous 'pencil mark' between the Fronts. In general, the entire WWII section is replete with errors that any decent editor should have caught. The material in that section was largely out of date thirty years ago.
As for content, the author's anti-German bias shows rather clearly. For example she can not comprehend why Berlin might not want a monument to Red Army war dead in their city! She comes down clearly on the side of those who condemn the new generation of Germans for the sins of their forbears. As for American angles, she repeats the old myth that we should have liberated Berlin as the disposition of the occupation zones was not set. This is very wrong, the zones having been determined in final form (except for the French zone--which did not come out of the Soviet allocation at all) over the fall of 1944. As we did with cities like Leipzig, we would have been obliged to withdraw from the territory surrounding Berlin by summer '45 or face a war. So Ike properly saw little reason to sacrifice American lives for land we would just turn over to the USSR anyway. She repeats the old McCarthy-ite myth that FDR 'gave' Eastern Europe away at Yalta! Any serious student of WWII will choke on almost every page she writes concerning that period, so replete is it with mistakes. Later, she castigates the US for not physically tearing down the Wall upon its 1961 construction--little realizing that such would have meant a war that no American then wished to fight. In general, the author has a tunnel vision grounded in some sort of anti-German and anti-American "pan-Europism". That, coupled with the worst editing I have ever seen in a major book means that this does not even deserve the one star I have given it.

This book has several things going for it that I particularly liked. First off I appreciate how complete it is. While one could say that that the last 150 years of Berlin history were the most important, this book gives an account of Berlin from the first settlements in the area all the way up to reunification and beyond. I particularly appreciated learning about Berlin/Cölln in the middle ages as well as what the city experienced in The 30 Years War. The book is also extremely readable and quite engrossing.

The book staggers, however, when Richie comes to World War II. There are factual errors, as other reviewers have pointed out. Richie also falls into the camp that sees the allies as having given Berlin, East Germany, and Eastern Europe away to Stalin. She claims that Roosevelt just gave the city away, accusing him of "criminally stupid behaviour" and almost suggests that Roosevelt and Stalin were somehow conspiring against Churchill. Her argument would seem more convincing if, in the following four hundred pages, she did not go out of her way to portray anyone left of Joe McCarthy in the same light.

The problem with Richie's text is that it's about absolutes. Having read the text, one gets the sense that Churchill, Adenauer, Kohl, Reagan (yes, Richie falls to Reagan's feet too, I'm surprised she didn't claim that he tore down the wall single handedly) etc. could do no wrong, whereas the East German government was only evil, all the time, thanks to the assitance of Kennedy, Willy Brandt, and Günter Grass. Not a very healthy approach to history.

The underlying thesis of this book (about the nature of Berliners and their relationship to political authority) is interesting, but this book is so replete with small errors so as to make one begin to doubt the whole.

Just for starters, the cover itself has two notable errors. 1) The story of Faust, as recounted by Goethe, does not take place in Berlin, but rather in Leipzig. Therefore, Berlin is not Faust's metropolis, even if the city has had a Faustian existence. 2) The crest on the book's cover is not that of the city (or state) of Berlin. Berlin's arms have a bear. The Prussian arms bore the red eagle.

As many experts have noted, the author treats many periods in Berlin's history with great imprecision or simply incorrectly. Her recounting of World War II's closing months makes me whether she understands exactly what did happen en route to May 2, 1945, both militarily and diplomatically. Her depiction is hardly worthly of an academically researched examination.

Her relating of the 1960s in Berlin is similarly unnuanced. There is a wealth of secondary literature on the 1968ers, yet she incorrectly characterizes much of their movement. Regarding the Cold War, she takes a very hawkish stance (even regarding the decision in 1945 to let the Russians conquer the city, which was essentially a no-brainer). She chastises the US for not tearing down the Berlin Wall in 1961. Doing so might have led to World War III. Besides, many scholars now believe that Americans were partially glad it was built, as it stabilized the Berlin situation.

I had hoped for more of history of Berlin as city, with a focus on architecture and social groups and their relationship to the political and cultural development of the city. For a general history of Germany or even Prussia, one might do better to consult an author like Craig, Orlow, Breuilly, or Dwyer. As for Berlin, perhaps one would best consult David Clay Large or another author.

When the book arrived in the mail I despaired at the size. When I started reading, I forgot the size.

Ms. Richie has done what very few serious authors try to do: produce something of serious intellectual intent while making it readable and absorbing. Her style is "reader friendly" I find.

She has looked at the social, economic and artistic history of Berlin from its first days as a village in a way that not only adds to our knowledge of the city, but also enlightens about the area in general. Her comments about German mentality and sense of self are often brutal and incisive. She gets away with this by being fair and involved. Her admiration for the land of her ancestors is obvious but not blind.

I could pick few arguments with her in areas where I had some knowledge, although I thought she was a little harsh on Eisenhower.

But, overall, I have no complaints. This book is a real addition to the literature about the area and will eventually find its way into college and other serious curricula about the history of Central Europe.

Congratulations to the author!

I was assigned Faust's Metropolis for a survey of Berlin's history. I was surprised that it was out of print only ten years after it had been published... until I actually managed to read the entire book.

Richie has a hate-on, to be blunt; she does not like Germans at all, and constructs an elaborate story of how inherently backward Berlin and Berliners while going out of her way to flatter minor Polish historical figures that few people outside of Poland have ever heard of. (Meanwhile, she provides little meaningful evidence that, outside of crazed leaders like the Soldier King, Prussia was any more regressive than other autocratic states of the time such as Poland and France.)

One wonders if Richie is some sort of objectivist, because she soon dives into a biased, counterintuitive and sometimes lo-fact carnival of attack against common Germans, the labor movement and Yalta while hagiographizing Reagan.

Nevertheless, while Richie's work clearly needs work it is perhaps the best-researched concise history of early Berlin I'm aware of, which unfortunately isn't saying a lot.

I am so impressed! When I first saw this book I wondered if I should bother with a 1000+ page book on the history of Berlin. 1000 pages later, I realized that about the only thing I did not like about this book was the fact that it was so bulky. Nonetheless, I wish it were twice as long as I enjoyed reading every single page. I had never read a history book that was so all encompassing. This book dealt with everything from the psyche, culture, history and military, to the arts, music, work ethics, literature, and social movements of the people of Berlin. The reader will learn so much about Germany, Prussia, Poland, Russia, the cold war, German literature, film, music, economy, and, ... yet never leave Berlin. I wish Ms. Richie would win a Pulitzer Prize for her great effort and contribution to history. I just loved this book and it is by far one of the best books I have ever read. This is for the history buff and all others interested in a great read.

This is an engrossing read, history on a sweeping scale. The book is not so much a history of the city of Berlin as a history of Germany from a Berlin perspective. While I was a bit disappointed that there was not a more detailed description of the development of parts of the city, buildings, social life, etc., this aspect should not deter readers from diving into the book. The author's theme that Berlin has been the engine that has driven Germany for the past several centuries is, I believe, well substantiated. The story of a backwater town in the small state of Prussia emerging suddenly in the Nineteenth Century as the center of the German universe is extremely well documented. From the perspective of the serious German history student this book is a good summary and the footnotes lead to worthy sources. From the reader's perspective it is a book that you have trouble putting down. I even found myself looking forward to returning home from work each night to begin reading the next chapter, each one better than the one before.

As I read this book, I thought sometimes what uncomfortable reading it must be for those who were, or remain, comsymps, those who "liked Uncle Joe" (like FDR), ridiculed the spy menace in Britain and the US, and still snicker at RR. Some of this rancor at being mugged by reality shows, I think, in the negative reviews.

This is history well-told, with fascinating detail, and judgements, some of which I don't agree with, but all of which are respectable.

The earliest history and Imperial Germany are well done, but, like the Nazi story, have been told many times. But the details after 1945 I have never seen put together like this. They are woven together in a lucid and lively way, and put well into German and international context.

I have been interested for some time in the social interplay in grand hotels, from Vicki Baum's great novel to Eloise and the Plaza. I enjoyed following the Adlon thru this book's index.

This book is well-written and contains fascinating information, especially in the early sections dealing with Berlin's pre-Germanic, Slavic history. Later on, the bloody Soviet assault on the city in 1945 against ferocious resistance is depicted magnificiently, while Richie's account of atrocities committed by Soviet troops is truly horrifying. Where Faust's Metropolis runs into trouble is in the author's tendency to slip into factual errors and in her more pronounced tendency to present her reactionary political interpretations as indisputable depictions of reality. Some of the factual errors are relatively minor; an example would be her assertion that during World War I the expensive German battleships were never used. Actually, they were used - against the British at Jutland, one of the most spectacular naval battles ever fought. In addition, she actually believes, or claims to believe, that Britain entered World War I to protect the neutrality rights of Belgium. Anyone with even a cursory knowledge of the War knows that the British themselves initially planned to invade neutral Holland in order to strike at Germany; the plan was abandoned out of military considerations, not legal or ethical ones. More serious are the errors brought on by the author's hatred of Marxism. One need not be an admirer of Stalin in order to realize that her claim that he spurned Britain and France in order to sign a pact with Hitler is pure nonsense. Stalin signed the pact only after the Western allies refused to sign an alliance with him, hoping that the Germans would attack the U.S.S.R. rather than Poland and France. Another area in which she substitutes fantasy for history is in her treatment of Generals Montgomery and Patton and their conflicts with Eisenhower. Both are presented as heroic in their eagerness to provoke a confrontation with the Soviets; Patton, she tells us, was fired "because the Americans would not allow anyone to sour relations with Stalin." Actually, Eisenhower removed Patton from his command after he disobeyed direct orders to stop associating with Nazis and openly planning for World War III. Montgomery, another head case, is lauded for his plan to dash accross Germany and seize Berlin just as it was in the grasp of the Soviets. Somehow he emerges as the hero of the Battle of the Bulge; Richie contends that Eisenhower "hid in his headquarters" during the battle because he feared that the Germans would try to assassinate him. Richie's treatment of the G.D.R. after the War reads like one of those pamphlets I was given to read in grade school - the ones written by J.Edgar Hoover or Cardinal Spellman. She finds nothing good about East Germany, not even free, guaranteed medical care or daycare for children, which are described as "rigid social benefits." What are non-rigid social benefits? The kind you get in the form of a trust account or monthly checks from an affluent mommy and daddy? Sometimes her denunciations take on a hysterical tone, as when she declares that the Evangelical Church of the G.D.R. (which made a point of attacking racism and human inequality) was "was very much the successor of Hitler's 'National Church.'" Ravings like this pass beyond the borders of muddled thinking and sloppy scholarlship and enter that of ideological fanaticism. Richie sides with every cold war hardliner she comes accross, from Richard Pipes to James Baker. Detente was a big mistake, we are assured, because it gave the Soviets military superiority in Europe; why they didn't use it to evict the West is not explained. Willy Brandt's opening to the East was also a no-no; he should have followed the Christian Democrats in blindly following the U.S. Ronald Reagan is a big hero; his absurd Star Wars plan, Richie thinks, is what led to the fall of the Soviet Union and the G.D.R. One has to wonder about the judgement of an author who believes that Reagan, whose government financed the Guatemalan and Salvadoran death squads, stood for international freedom and justice. In a lengthy and sanctimonious afterward the author's right-wing agenda becomes even more explicit. she lectures West Berliners that "the road away from the United States is the road to disaster" and insults Willy Brandt's widow as "pathetic" for begging to differ. She also lumps the Greens ("dreamy environmentalists") and Berlin's new leftists in with vicious neo-Nazis as opponents of U.S. leadership. At some points in this book Richie seems to reject the concept of collective guilt for the Holocaust, at other points she wants the Communists, who themselves were murdered, jailed or forced into exile by the Nazis, to assume responsibility for it. In the afterward she encourages "all Berliners ... to try to be worthy of forgiveness." This will probably happen around the same time that British Tories accept responsibility for Britain's leading role in the slave trade and for the genocical witholding of food during the Irish Potato Famine. One last point. For someone who throws around so many phrases about freedom and democracy, Richie seems to have a rather odd idea of how this works out in practice. As a sign of "hope and optimism" she notes that "hard-line East German teachers were barred from schools" after reunification. In other words, Marxist teachers were fired, as they were in the U.S. in the McCarthy Era. The old Tory interpretation of individual rights - Of course you have freedom of speech. All we ask is that you don't try to exercise it.