Kerr has created a piece of historical fiction that tries to take the reader behind what happened at the meeting of the Big 3 (Churchill, Roosevelt and Stalin) at Tehran. He cleverly suggests intrigues that might have gone on behind the scenes and leading up to the meeting. It's a fun read that mostly holds together. Not quite as good as his Berlin Trilogy, but very enjoyable.

Decent enough read

It's a perfectly decent book, an interesting counter factual but it's problem is that you keep thinking " but it's not Bernie Gunther"

En realidad no es historia alternativa por cuanto no hay cambio respecto de lo que se cuenta en los libros de historia. Es mas bien novela histórica en la que se narran hechos que han permanecido silenciados y se han eliminado de la versión oficial con relación a la conferencia de Teherán entre Stalin, Roosevelt y Churchill durante la segunda guerra mundial. Una trama de espionaje muy lograda con una documentación exhaustiva respecto a los personajes y hechos históricos (no creo que me olvide del lapiz verde de Himmler). Agradable de leer y aunque un poco dispersa y falta de estructura redondea bien la trama. Lo mejor los detalles reales que muchas veces superan la ficción.

I'd seen men with thinner arms and faces, but only on a pirate's flag.

Hitler's Peace is the perfect historical novel - in that it is only as historical as its author needs it to be for a good story. It's made possible by the genuine scatterbrainess of Nazi Germany's political system, its leaders being barely less at each others throats than as portrayed here. Throw in a few rogues from the Allied side, and we have a totally fake.... ...yet could be true... ...and, most importantly, fun retelling.

Name dropper

I was beginning to suspect that almost everyone invited to the party had been to Cambridge and was either a spy, a Communist, or a homosexual - in Anthony Blunt’s case very probably all three.

Kerr isn't shy with dropping names, practically swimming in an ocean of real life characters, regardless of need. Cameos by Evelyn Waugh and Enoch Powell feature for little more reason than a few laughs.

Kerr gets away with using historical characters, because Kerr has an ability to humanise them, including Hitler, Himmler and Stalin, individuals generally avoided or rendered stiffly. It's not "humanise" in the sense you would like them, rather it is creating plausibility in their actions rather than simply for the plot (compare with [b:Gone For Soldiers,|56331|Gone For Soldiers|Jeff Shaara|https://i.gr-assets.com/images/S/compressed.photo.goodreads.com/books/1388869164l/56331._SY75_.jpg|54899] where historical individuals appears stuck in their place in history). I would emphasise these are not necessarily reflections of who these individuals actually were (aspects of Hitler in Hitler's Peace I would seriously question), but they're people with motivations, and take actions in line with them.

Twists and turns

I was to be the mutt with no balls and just my master's collar to let people know that I had the right to piss on his flowers.

Kerr's about the twist and, because he's in the rarefied air of Great Power Politics, he has to:

(a) shock us out of the historical narrative with a twist; and

(b) (for propriety's sake), shock us back into the historical narrative with a counter-twist.

Considering historical alternatives and how characters might have acted in them can be interesting (if well written), and can challenge you not to simply dismiss it. Kerr pushes his luck here - the sequence of events to justify the twist in (a) makes the countertwist in (b) somewhat implausible, which is ironic as (b) is the reversion back to the historical mean. The twists also have the standard issue with this style - the major characters lose their relevance because the twists take them away from their original purpose of being in the story (though Kerr valiantly attempts to counteract it).

That’s the true genius of women. Most of them could give Sun Tzu an object lesson in how attack is the best form of defence.

You can absolutely crush this book within a few days (or a day if you are blessed with the time), and it is a credit to Kerr's style. He's always fun.

DNF

Upon finishing the book, I like that the end of the book includes what events actually occurred in real life. I found it hard to follow along at times because of the excessive use of German/Polish/Russian names that I am simply not used to, and would have loved to see an ending that encompassed Diana’s reaction to Professor Mayer’s death. This book was good, but took me a while to read.

I enjoyed the WW2 setting and how well known historical figures were major characters in the narrative. Plotting was intricate and not quite convincing. Denouement really was complicated and the tying up of so many disparate plot threads disappointing. Too much ‘James Bondian’ type action wrapped in an erudite historical wrapping - did not come off for me.

Interesting WW2 speculative history thriller. American viewpoint character a cad and not very interesting; hard to understand why women throw themselves at this philosophy professor; so docking 1 star for that. He's no Bernie Gunther... nor is the German viewpoint character. Plot was good and moved right along. Historical figures portrayed well. Worth the read.