Customer Reviews

Seven Days in May

5 star:		(12)
4 star:		(2)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

A coup d'etat in the United States? A visionary pacifist President gets a disarmament treaty ratified, over the military's opposition, and is about to begin implementing it despite widespread public apprehension and disapproval. Some top military and congressional leaders, led by the charismatic general who chairs the Joint Chiefs of Staff, join forces in taking advantage of the President's political weakness--but what are they planning, and how far will they go? The general's aide begins connecting certain ominous clues, suspects the worst, and shares his fears with the President. Then the battle is joined: the President and a small inner circle must not only figure out whether there is a conspiracy but, if there is one, must neutralize it--all before a blow that might fall at any time, all without provoking the conspirators into premature action, and all without falling prey to a paranoia that will itself furnish the pretext for bringing down the President even if there never was any conspiracy.

The writing is tight and dramatic. "Seven Days in May" was adapted to the big screen in a 1964 film starring Kirk Douglas and Burt Lancaster, and again thirty years later in a 1994 made-for-television movie starring Forrest Tucker. Both versions do justice to the novel.

If you enjoy "Seven Days in May," you may also enjoy "Night of Camp David," also by Fletcher Knebel. "Night of Camp David" largely follows the same formula as "Seven Days in May," but the issue is presidential incapacity rather than a coup d'etat.

At the height of the Cold War, an American President more concerned with conscience than popularity, negotiates a disarmament treaty with the Soviet Union. His approval rating plummets. But what is worse, his actions convince the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, Air Force General James Mattoon Scott, that the President has become a danger to national security and must be stopped. Marine Col. "Jiggs" Casey, Director of the Joint Chiefs, discovers the plot, and it is up to him and a handful of others to prevent the unthinkable: a military coup to overthrow the US Government. This book is magnificently written and -- as evidenced by its second screen adaptation in 1994 -- is just as relevant today as it was 34 years ago. A cautionary tale for anyone who assumes American democracy immune to palace revolution.

"Seven Days in May" is an authentic classic political thriller of the first rank. Authors Baily and Knebel present a scenario in which an unpopular President is targeted by America's top military brass for an actual military takeover of the government. The story is complex, but vividly presented with an authenticity that is both disturbing and plausible. The reader is brought to understand that it could happen here, and the story suggests how such a scenario could come about in these United States.

The novel is well-written and fast-paced, never drags, and absolutely holds the reader's interest throughout. The amazing thing about the story is that every bit of it hangs together without straining the reader's sense of credulity. The novel features excellent writing, and the authors weave the plot together towards a conclusion that is startling and believable (no spoiler here).

This was a big budget movie in the 1960s featuring Kirk Douglas and Burt Lancaster (available on DVD) and I would very much like to see a reprint of the novel become available, as my often-read paperback copy has long since fallen to pieces from frequent readings.

I read this book on a long airplane trip, and the story was so intense it kept me glued from lift off to land down.

As the other reviewers have summarized, the plot centers around "Seven days in May" as the President of the United States and his closest aides secretly scramble to thwart a coup being planned by the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

The book is very fast paced, and has no "main" character. The point of view shifts from one character to another, often on opposite ends of the country, with lots of action in between. There are numerous twists and turns, but the book is never predictable or cliched.

It's also a very well-researched story, and anyone well versed in National Security and the Pentagon will be impressed at the two authors' attention to detail.

I was really amazed how un-dated this book is, despite being written in the early 60's. The authors wisely never reveal the year the story takes place, but subtle hints indicate it takes place sometime in the 70's (Kennedy is the last "real" President mentioned). When you hear the logic of some of the coup-planners you have to wonder wheter or not such a scheme has ever been secretly plotted in the past- or wheter a similar one will ever be plotted in the future. Complacency in the stability of ANY democracy can be dangerous, and the events in "Seven Days in May" certainly proves that.

This book highlights the independence that exists between the military and civilian branches of the US government, and the careful dance that the president must do to appease both sides. When it comes to matters of national security, the book raises the important question of who is ultimately responsible. Should the constitution always be respected, even when the safety of the nation is in danger? Does the military have the right to surpass the president if he is acting in a manner that will endanger the country? Does the president deserve to have his role as "Commander in Chief"?

In this era of terrorism and uncertainty, these are all very relevant questions to ask. This book, especially the ending, answers these, and many others, brilliantly.

Exactly as long as it needs to be--an important thing with books--"Seven Days in May" is a riveting thriller about the totally unthinkable: a military coup d'etat in the United States Goverment. Yet, the author makes it seem possible. A very popular general, a president with the lowest rating since Truman, and a Peace Treaty that has the country and the government divided...could it trigger a popular coup? It does in this book, and it is set forth totally realistically, as if something like this REALLY could happen. We think our country is immune from this kind of Byzantine political intrigue, but it turns out that we really are no less vulnerable from breakdown than your average banana republic...at least in this book. Chilling thought isn't it? Totally awesome book, I recommend it highly.

I can't possibly add any comment that wouldn't just echo the praise already heaped upon this excellent novel which I originally read as a teen in the early sixties. With the recent remake of The Manchurian Candidate updated to current events, Seven Days In May has preyed on my mind.

Possible scenario: The U.S. Military, totally disgusted with the Iraq War's civilian leadership and the destruction of a military establishment slowly and systematically put back together after Vietnam, decides to stop the carnage and waste and do SOMETHING about it. Of course, it would only be temporary until the next elections...or maybe not. A chilling possiblity.

This gripping 1962 novel provides a stark reminder of both the Cold War and the fragility of democratic rule. President Jordan Lyman has recently signed (and the Senate approved) a nuclear disarmament treaty with the Soviet Union. But the treaty remains highly unpopular, and has left many in and out of the military establishment frightful of surprise attack and seething with anger. Enter General James Scott, a charismatic leader with political ambitions. President Lyman learns that General Scott may be plotting against him, but the evidence is sketchy, and Lyman doesn't want to act against a possible military coup without something closer to proof. Adding to the President's woes are his current unpopularity, his doubts as to just who is loyal, and his uncertainty as to the correct course of action. As the story unravels, we sense the President's fear as well as the ever-present threats to democratic rule, particularly in times of danger and stress.

SEVEN DAYS IN MAY is an excellent novel as relevant today as it was in the 1960's. This fast-reading book was made into a very good 1964 movie with Frederick March (President Lyman), Burt Lancaster (General Scott), Kirk Douglas, Ava Gardner, and Edmond O'Brien.

Great political thriller that is worth the time. I read this as a teenager when it was new and wanted to revisit it as an adult. It reads almost as a contemporary novel with just a few anachronistic items. I enjoyed it over 40 years later.

This story takes place in early 1960's during the USA-Russian peace time decision to dis-arm our nuclear weapons, HOWEVER, some of the mindsets that were active then could still be in place now, but with different purposes. A really well written, gripping suspense novel without the physical violence that so many thrillers now seem focused on, but the action is now inside your head. The military outlook versus the political policies to run the country are extremely interesting and alarming also. I'd heard of the book for many years and guess there was also a movie made from it, but really glad to now have the chance to read this and keep for my book collection of American history.

This book is a fascinating look at how those at the top of the power structure of the United States face a crisis and the roles they play in it. The strong point of this story is that it goes into the heads of the President and his close advisors who are privy to the information Col Casey uncovers regarding General Scott's attempt to carry out a military coup. He points out the difference in how the head of the President's Secret Service detail, a Cabinet Secretary, a Presidential Staff member, a military man and a close political ally who is a Senator view their roles and responsibilities in the crisis. The writers of the book certainly did a lot of research into how the various layers around the President as well as the President think and work in this situation.
What I find particularly fascinating about the book is that General Scott and the military as a whole are NOT portrayed in a negative fashion. The President is quoted as saying how much respect he has for the professional officer corps and particularly the graduates of the service academies. General Scott is NOT portrayed has having had a history of insubordination and of being a swaggering potential Napoleon (although Rod Serling DID attempt to introduce this into the screenplay of the movie) and he is not recorded as having contempt for the democratic, constitutional system, although one of his chief subordinates in the coup attempt, Col Broderick, is said to have fascistic tendencies, and Scott also has a formed an alliance with a rabble-rousing extremist television commentator. Scott decides to act, not because of apparent egotistical motivations, but because of a real loss of public support for the President and fears of Soviet duplicity in an unpopular arms reduction agreement. Thus, the writers posit this potential military coup in an environment that was very different than the one that existed a decade later when Vietnam and Watergate made public contempt for the military and political Establishments much more widespread. Perhaps this is what President Eisenhower was warning about when he made his speech telling the American people to beware of the military-industrial complex because it had been, as a result of the Second World War, Korean War and the Cold War, accumulating much influence and people had perhaps too much faith in those who were at the top of this complex, and there was a possible dangerous belief that "generals" were better qualified to run the country at a time like that than the civilians. Like I stated above, a decade later, people would be much less inclined to think so (it is interesting that Eisenhower himself came out of the military establishment!-he was more aware of their weaknesses than the public at large).

The one failing of the book in my eyes is the failure to show how General Scott and his clandestine supporters thought to carry out the coup, other than having the 3500 men of ECOMCON at Site Y take over various emergency communications facilities in the US. Even if they could take the President prisoner at Mt Thunder, wouldn't there be an explosion of opposition both in the public and in the military itself?
At the time of the writing of the book, there was compulsory military service for many Americans, meaning that people of all political persuasions were in uniform. Those who were opposed to Scott's views wouldn't just sit passively and do nothing. What about the government offices and their civilian chiefs? Would they take orders from Scott and the military Junta or would they begin a policy of non-cooperation? In countries with a politicized military and a history of military coups like Argentina, military officers were sent to run government offices and the civilians accepted them because the preceding civilian goverments were often viewed as corrupt and discredited. The US has no history of this. There was a proposal that during the Civil War when the Union was losing that President Lincoln step down and a military dictatorship be set up under General McClellan, but even in this extreme situation, it was understood that the American people would not stand for this.
Thinking about all this has brought me to the conclusion that a military coup of the type described in this book simply could not be successfully carried out. In spite of this, I recommend the book as an exciting read and informative about how the nation's leaders think.