Meh.
This book has positives and negatives. It does provide insight to a subject area that is not well known and therefore could be considered a valuable piece of information.
It's a good book for academics studying the subject of post-war Germany. However I did find it difficult to read as I myself am not knowledgable in the topic. The book did take me a while to read despite it being what I would consider a small page number. Also I found when reading it, on multiple occassions I had to make reference to similar events in British history or histories that I have a basic understanding in. By doing this I was able to understand some of the events described in the book and the theories that the author would hypothesise. If however, I did not have this understanding from other topics I do not think I would have understood the book to a great deal, let alone finish it. I therefore feel that this book is probably better for academics to read rather than the general public. You can also tell from reading that that was the author's intended audience.
The book is detailed and it is easy to see that the author did go into great depth on the topic. Her points come across coherently although at times can appear a bit repetitve. Also the structure of the book is a bit odd. Instead of acknowledging the flaws of her sourcework/ the limitations when passing, the author chooses to reference this in the epilogue of the book. So, even though my questions about the sourcework do get answered you have to wait until the end of the book to find out what the flaws were and her reasoning for not using some sourcework.
In addition, it's clear to me that the author does understand the difference between a rebel group anf teenagers, however this is only identified in the last chapter of the book, any reference to the rebel groups/ teens mentioned prior do not have this clear distinction. The author also fails in this instance to outline the distinction making the majority of the book difficult to read regarding that topic because for the majority of the book the reader is under the impression that the author does not know the difference between teenagers and rebels.
Furthermore, the author clearly focuses on the governement's response to western consumerism compared to the people; whilst this is a interesting microstudy, I feel it would have been more interesting to look at the people's reactions to western consumerism through a closer look at oral histories/interviews from the people, specifically those who were teens at the time of the 1950s in both East and West Germany. The book's sourcework does focus on the government's intentions a bit too much for my taste.
Also, despite the author wanting to look at the response to western consumerism with regard to race and gender, these topics are hardly discussed. Race only appears in specific case studies such as the effects of Jazz music and women are not mentioned in great detail until chapter 5, the last chapter of the book.
I ackowledge that the author would have struggled, there is simply not a lot of information about this topic and with it being in recent history it is safe to say that the documents from both governements could be restricted. However with that in mind the author should have made up for the lack of resources with interviews from the people; this would have given a better understanding to how the people on both sides of the wall responded to American influence. Not to mention, this would have given a nice contrast to the intentions that both governments had.
I like how the book ends with ideas for further research. The author clearly recognises the limitations in studying this subject and does present a few options for historians to study and expand the field of knowledge.
Overall, do I think it's a good book?
-Yes, I feel the book does benfit to the field of history, especially since it is about a topic that is not widely considered.
Do I like the book?
-It's alright. I prefer social history more myself and felt that the book could have been stronger had it balanced out between the government and the people rather than mainly focus on the government.