Brothers: The Hidden History of the Kennedy Years [Hardcover]

I actually wasn't expecting to enjoy this book as much as I did. "Brothers" falls more into the category of "why-dunnit" than "who" and I usually find such works a little tedious and long-winded. However, Talbot rarely over-emphasises a point and weaves many fascinating and engaging tales into his narrative. That said, there are some important points , such as the issue of Secret Service protection, that were only touched upon and could have been explored at least a little.

As Jim DiEugenio has pointed out, Talbot's take on the Kennedy saga has altered drastically over the last decade or so. Way back in 1992, he wrote an artice on the movie JFK, in which he criticised Oliver Stone's theory that Kennedy was fighting a government opposed to peace and social justice and that this led directly to his assassination. In "Brothers," Talbot has made a 180 degree turn and now presents much evidence supporting Stone's controversial view. In my opinion, this speaks volumes about the integrity of the author. Unlike the majority of Kennedy researchers, talbot is clearly more than ready to go where the evidence leads him.

Nonetheless, there are a few problems with "Brothers," the biggest of which is his treatment of the Jim Garrison investigation. Although it appears that Talbot is trying to take an objective stance, he ends up whitewashing the appalling behaviour of Walter Sheridan and doesn't acknowledge the government coordinated campaign to de-rail Garrison's probe. The New Orleans evidence is key to the conspiracy to kill Kennedy and the attack on Garrison deserves a more accurate treatment.

All in all, an enjoyable read that has inspired me to look into the RFK murder - something I had vowed not to do after spending so many years on JFK! Buy it, but buy Bill Davy's "Let Justice Be Done" too to fill you in on the details of the Garrison case.

If you think you know all there is to know about the Kennedy presidency, you will learn more than you expect from reading the new material in Brothers. If you don't think you know enough yet to satisfy you, Brothers is a must read.

The title of the book is a little misleading. Brothers is really focused on RFK and a few of his most loyal lieutenants. The lieutenants were so close to the Kennedys that they felt like and were treated like brothers.

As time passes, historical events become clearer. But if you wait too long to render judgment, you lose the testimony of those who participated in the events. Brothers is unusual in that sense: It adds the views from 150 new interviews, but unavoidably loses some perspective as many witnesses are no longer available and many important documents remain classified.

Here are some of the new perspectives Brothers brought to my attention:

1. JFK wasn't really in control of the CIA and military while he was president. The CIA was off running anti-Castro operations in violation of direct presidential orders. The Bay of Pigs invasion was planned by the CIA from the beginning as a ploy to trigger an American military invasion of Cuba which the Joint Chiefs supported.

2. Some in the Pentagon were pushing for a preemptive nuclear strike on the Soviet Union in 1961.

3. JFK and RFK had so little confidence in the Secret Service that they were planning to put presidential protection under the attorney general's office.

4. The Cuban missile crisis was more dangerous than I believed. The Soviets had many more troops than the CIA believed and those troops were equipped with tactical nuclear weapons and permission to use them against an American invasion of Cuba.

5. JFK planned to withdraw from Vietnam after the 1964 election.

6. RFK began his own private investigation of JFK's assassination and concluded that he needed to dismantle the CIA if elected in 1968.

7. Those who were in the best position to judge in Dallas thought that there was more than one gunman.

8. Some of those with RFK in Los Angeles thought that there was more than one gunman there.

9. A group of CIA dirty tricksters were present in both Dallas and Los Angeles when the assassinations occurred. You are left to draw the inference that the CIA assassinated JFK and RFK, but there's no direct evidence to sustain the point.

I found that the book tended to try to cover too much ground. As a result, any particular set of evidence was covered quite quickly. In light of the many books that have been written on these subjects, it would have been useful to address those books and try to straighten out incorrect viewpoints from at least the most influential of those books. For example, the cases for and against multiple gunmen in Dallas and Los Angeles receive relatively little attention, even though much has been written on this subject.

Ultimately, the book raises a fundamental point: We have experienced some national tragedies beginning in 1963 which include these assassinations, the Vietnam War, and the invasion of Iraq in 2003. Isn't it time that we made it a priority to understand what happened and what went wrong, so we can avoid repeating the mistakes? If we let sleeping dogs lie, they may awake and bite us again.

I've really tried very hard to enjoy BROTHERS but it's been a long hard road getting to the end of a complex and thorough piece of research and at times I nearly gave up on it. It's not that it's not a good book, but I found certain sections - especially the Kennedy White House years - especially dry.

The story it tells, however, is a fascinating one, and the dark corners of the Cold War are peered into meticulously. A large assortment of shady and shifty characters emerge from the gloom and the world they inhabited is revealed as being, quite frankly, terrifying. We are told, in very frank and uncompromising terms, the story of the John F Kennedy White House and the internal battles going on between the Hawks and the Doves during the early part of the cold war, and in many ways makes you feel very grateful that the man in the White House at that time was the man with the strength of character and self belief he had, because with anyone else in charge you get the impression that we may all really have been blown to kingdom come.

After the events of Dallas in November 1963, the story shifts focus onto the story of Robert Kennedy's last few years of life and his reluctance to address the subject of the investigation into his brother's death and his eventual fateful decision to run for the highest office in the land which ended with the tragedy at the Ambassador Hotel in 1968.

I'm not sure, in the end, that this book is the one it claimed it was going to be. Certainly, whilst it opens with the idea that Bobby was haunted and obsessed by the assassination, mostly it seems to imply that he was going to investigate it further after winning the White House which of course he never did. The rest is conjecture and speculation, and whilst it is a fascinating account into the tragic circumstances surrounding the lives and deaths of the two brothers, I'm not sure that the lasting impression the book leaves me with is of the brothers themselves. Instead there is an unsettling sense of the evil that faceless men do in the dark shadows in the name of democracy and freedom and how difficult it is to stop them from engaging in their wickedness when they have committed to their course of action.