Customer Reviews

America, Russia and the Cold War 1945-2006

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

 

 

I had to buy this book for a Cold War class during my masters program. It is a fairly thin book considering all that went on the Cold War but this is just meant to be a light survey of the Cold War years. To tell of the major events to people who may not be familiar with them. I did not think of it as having a very liberal bent to it like the previous reviewer. It is a little more liberal than other books out there but that is bound to happen. Just as there are more conservative leaning books written about the cold war. I recommend this book for anyone who is taking a class on the Cold War and needs some background information on it. It is easy to read and get through and tells of the major points in the Cold War between Russia and America.

Overall a very efficient, analytic and even-handed overview of the Cold War's issues and origins. The anti-American bias perceived by other reviewers wasn't evident to me, particularly as the author takes a widely holistic approach to his subject. Political, economic, cultural and historical factors are considered, as are the personal predilections of key policy-makers on both sides. Motives and decisions are laid out within the qualitative context of their time, while consequences are relevantly tied to ours.

If LaFeber has an agenda, it's to implicitly demonstrate that rational and productive foreign policy can not come from a place of pride, fear and cynicism. In this he lets the records of Washington and Moscow speak for themselves, neither excusing nor apologizing for anyone.

LaFebre first wrote this book in 1967, covering just 1945-46---the origins of the Cold War. In the next edition he expanded it to what is is today---a full length history up to the present time. It remains what it always has been -- a balanced, judicious account, full of the missed opportunities, misunderstandings, and occasional wrong choices on both sides. But this is no excuse or apologia for Soviet Communism by any means. It is true that it avoids the triumphalist "WE WON" tone is some recent revisionist books on the subject which sweep all doubt and misgivings, as well as missteps, that were the usual approach in honestly recounting Cold War before the end of Communism, when the threat of nuclear war was real and heavy. The ultimate fall of Communism was a very long time coming and indeed in the late 40s and early 50s, many experts felt that even if they needed to be resisted, there were so many problems inside their system, and the American system so much healthier (and richer) that it would crumble later, if not sooner, which it did of course. For those seeking a fair, calm history that sees all of this clearly and does not take a "they-lost-because-we-got-tough" outlook (which is a bit reductive, if not plain wrong), this admirable, scholarly book in its most recent of many editions (2002) fills the bill.

The USSR entered into a pact with Hitler, took half of Poland, attacked Finland and invaded the Baltic nations because of the United States, of course! If you didn't know that, or you disagree, you are not fashionably lefty and you will not like this book. This is what passes for history nowadays, a watered-down, slightly less tendentious view of the US and the West than Chomnsky's, but still with the same poison: blame the US first; blame the US always; defend/justify every tyranny, no matter how corrupt and homicidal, if said tyranny opposed the West and/or the US; serve as "history" to readers, many of whom have been brought up on a steady diet of "Sins of the Western World" right here in the colleges of this country. Zinn has walked this path as well, and what a fantastic, profitable business this West/America bashing is! I don't know if LaFeber sells as many books as Chomsky or Zinn, or if he is quoted by Matt Damon in moronic movies about geniuses (incidentally, someone better tell Damon that he only played a smart guy in the film Good Will Hunter), but the author of this pamphlet certainly has his middle finger right on the issues. Just like the pompous documentary The Cold War, this book by LaFeber loves to play the moral equivalence game: a sadist and murderer or tens of millions on one side; an elected president who had to make very hard decisions on the other: oh, well, they are the same. And the mas murderer wanted to be treated with respect, which the democrat would not give him! Bad democrat! It's your fault.

Tha rank odor of something definitely putrid is detectable immediately, in the first paragraph of the book, and it never leaves. Wear rubber gloves and a mask.

I wanted to check a beginner's book on cold war and was VERY disappointed. I don't understand why this book had so many editions, since it's very weak : narration is poor, overtly liberal, America is responsible for the cold war. The whole book looks as it's still in the 70s, with those laughable revisionnist ideas, old maps and cartoons.

One sentence sums up the spirit perfectly : "[The Berlin Wall] was mute and bloody testimony to the policy of both East and West which, since 1945, had preferred a divided rather than a neutralized and united Germany". (p.225) No comment.

The chapters, despite the mention "updated" are not updated at all, Zubok and Pleshakov isn't even mentioned. After reading the first chapters, i throwed it to the can. Gonna check John Gaddis instead. Oh boy, they should put a sticker "liberal orientation" on books to save people's money !