Customer Reviews

The Cold War: A Military History

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

 

 

The book is a series of articles by many prominent modern historians and it begins at the beginning (a very good place to start) of the Cold War with an article entitled, "The Day the War Started."

Unfortunately, the book essentially ends in the early 1980s with, "The War Scare of 1983." What this means is the book does not consider the last years of the Cold War or how it ended. Another missing piece is that, other than the first series of articles on the war's beginnings and the more well known aspects of the Cold War such as the Cuban Missile Crisis and Berlin, the focus of the book is on the Korean and Vietnam Wars. It ignores other aspects of the Cold War such as our military involvement in Central America throughout the 1980s, the whole issue of brush fire wars in Europe's former colonies in which one side or the other was supported by the US or USSR, and the bipolarization of mid-level conflicts, such as in the Middle East, where, again, the US and USSR supported opposing sides. These missing aspects are not trivial in the context of the Cold War.

Having said that, I'm glad I bought the book, and I've already recommended it to others. It's impossible to not get a lot out of a book that includes articles by the likes of Williamson Murray, John F. Guilmartin, Jr., Douglas Porch, Stephen E. Ambrose, Victor David Hanson, and far more. But, in the end, it is incomplete - hence the three stars.

This is a fascinating anthology of essays, a rich treasure trove of Cold War experiences told by leading historians. Some events chronicled here are well known -- the Berlin Airlift, Cuban Missile Crisis, Truman's cashiering of MacArthur, Dien Bien Phu, etc. -- while others this reader learned about for the first time. For example, an uprising of North Korean and Chinese POWs at Koje-do; the Chinese Communist assault on the British frigate Amethyst in 1949, or CIA efforts -- soon compromised -- to tap Soviet telephone lines by digging a tunnel in East Berlin.

The collection of 27 essays begins with the 1946 showdown with the Soviets over their ambitions in Turkey. James Chace contends the Cold War started on August 19 of that year, when Truman sent a naval task force to Istanbul in response to Stalin's attempt to establish naval bases in the Dardanelles Strait. In the final essay, Williamson Murray examines Soviet military planners' strategy for invading central Europe, which came to light after the Berlin Wall's collapse. Instead of sending their tanks through the Fulda Gap and into West Germany, as widely anticipated, Soviet planners envisioned unleashing 300 to 400 nuclear missiles on Western Europe as a prelude to a ground assault. Only the prospect of massive nuclear retaliation from the U.S., Murray says, dissuaded the Kremlin from acting on its generals' invasion plans.

Readers will draw their own conclusions about which essays are the most intriguing. Personally, I especially liked Tom Fleming's account of Matthew Ridgway Herculean efforts to turn the tide in North Korea, and Victor Davis Hanson's "revisionist" account of Curtis LeMay's career and contributions.

Whatever your personal preference, this anthology will prove satisfying for any reader with an interest in recent American history.

From the end of the Second World War until the collapse of the Soviet Union almost a half century later the two major powers in the world faced a kind of war. It was called the cold war because not much fighting occurred. To be sure, there was some in places like Korea, Viet Nam and Afghanistan. And there were some time where the two superpowers faced each other over loaded weapons such as Berlin and Cuba. But all in all, this was the longest time since the Roman Empire that the two strongest countries on the globe didn't go to war.

During much of this time the Military History Quarterly has provided a venue for the most prominent historians of our time to present articles on points of history as it was being lived. Robert Cowley is the founding editor of MHQ. In this volume he has selected articles from the Cold War period that serve to be a history of the Cold War written as it happened. The authors include some of the most prominent historians of that time, and some others that are not so well known but who provide an insight into the times.

This book disappointed me and I agree with the other reviewers who say it is incomplete and too heavily focused on Korea and Vietnam. Even beyond that, the selection and content of the essays is negative to the point of bias against the US--I do not agree with the reviewer who says the theme is "America won." To the contrary, many of the essays go out of their way to point out alleged American errors of diplomacy and military action, and ignores significant American steps that led to success, such as Reagan's decision at Reykjavik not to compromise on SDI. While the book is framed as a military history, it does discuss arms treaties and the importance of missile technology (and limitations thereon) to the Cold War; not to mention Reagan's role in structuring the limitations talks is a non-trivial oversight. Further, there is nothing about submarine warfare or undersea cable tapping, Grenada, Afghanistan, Uganda, Nicaragua or other East-West proxy wars, the terror caused by Soviet projection of military power (e.g., Hungary 1956), the Walker Navy spy ring, military uses of cryptography, or other important areas. If you want to read about American errors in Vietnam, buy the book, but otherwise look for a more complete and balanced account of the whole conflict.

The quality of the individual articles is very high. As a collection, however, something is lacking. A better title would have been, "The Vietnam and Korean Wars with Bonus Material". Such huge portion of the book is dedicated to southeast Asia that one would think it was heart of the Cold War. I find it amazing there isn't a single article on Afghanistan (heck, he could have even have put in the Vietnam section that dominates the book and called the chapter "Russia's Turn"). In fact, the word Afghanistan doesn't even appear in the entire text. Not a word on the wide variety of surrogate wars fought in the Americas or the Middle East either.

Another flaw is that the introductory pages to each article written by the editor add almost nothing to the text. The articles would stand better on their own.

So basically I'd give the articles five stars. I'd give the editing/collation perhaps two stars. I gave it four overall because the bulk of what your read is very good and I'll give credit where credit is due. Nonetheless, the narrow scope of the collection and the poor quality of the editor's introductions is annoying.

I liked the book and choice of essays, but having grown up in Germany in the 70s and 80s within a few miles from several key NATO installations and thus with growing up with the clear notion that our entire region would be gone in a matter of minutes if the Cold War ever turned hot, the Cold War was very real for us and I did expect the book to cover more of the European Cold War standoff in all its facets. I understand that Vietnam and Korea deserve coverage in a comprehensive Cold War history book, but essays like the one about the POWs would seem to fit better in a similar volume that focuses specifically on the Vietnam conflict.

Histories of the Cold War generally concentrate on the politics of it all. But for many, the Cold War's military implications and activities are just as interesting. Historical neglect ends with this book--or, more precisely, ended with the publication of these essays in Military History Quarterly over the past several years.

This is an excellent collection, each story meeting the demanding literary and historical standards of that fine publication.

Also recommended is Cold War Clashes: Confronting Communism, 1945-1991 by Richard K. Kolb (editor), David Colley (author) and Michael Haydock (author). It was published last year by the VFW and is listed on Amazon.

there are a number of vignettes in this book that are interesting, however the general tone of the book is very America centric, perhaps with an underlying tone of "we won", which detracts from those essays that are more balanced. Generally this was unsatisfying, frustrating eneough to write this review, as although the better essays are quite good, overall there is a lack of substance.

However, the title is a tad misleading .