Western interpretations of the Cold War - both realist and neoconservative - have erred by exaggerating either the Kremlin's pragmatism or its aggressiveness, argues Vladislav Zubok. Explaining the interests, aspirations, illusions, fears, and misperceptions of the Kremlin leaders and Soviet elites, Zubok offers a Soviet perspective on the greatest standoff of the 20th century.
©2007 Vladislav M. Zubok (P)2010 Audible, Inc.
"Ranks as the new standard work on the Soviet Union's Cold War - for scholars and students alike.... An excellent combination of old and new, offering both a synthetic interpretation of Soviet foreign policy in the latter half of the twentieth century and fresh new material to reconceptualize the factors behind that policy.... An important book [and] a standout." (Journal of American History)
This is a history of the Cold War, largely from the perspective of the Kremlin. The author unapologetically emphasizes the effect of personality on the course of the Cold War. In fact, he argues that the personalities in the Kremlin were decisive. Unlike many historians, he thinks highly of Brezhnev and even Andropov. His evaluations of Kruschev and Gorbachev are mixed.
Zubok's scholarship and grasp of detail are impressive, and he makes good use of the new historical materials which have become available since the late 1990's. Personally, I suspect his analysis is completely off base. However, one of the virtues of the book is that Zubok gives the reader enough solid information to make a personal judgment possible.
The narration is a bit mechanical, but clear and well-paced. This may be because Zubok's writing could be described in almost the same words. This is solid, well-crafted political biography -- not really history in the broader sense. However, if, like me, you lived through many of those events and always wondered, "why did they do that? What were they thinking?" then this book will go a long way towards answering those questions.
If this seems contradictory, consider an example: Zubok explains almost nothing about the internal economic problems of the USSR. However, he thoroughly explores the Soviet leadership's deep ignorance of these issues and how that ignorance affected their decisions. He doesn't really explain the deep stagnation of the Soviet apparat, but is brilliant in explaining how this dead weight isolated the top leadership and constrained their thinking.
This book covers the period from the end of World War II through the end of the Soviet Union as seen through the eyes of the Soviet leadership and, as such, it adds a great deal to a balanced view of what happened and why. While it may not be surprising that the Soviets viewed the causes of the crises that arose between the Soviet Union and the West differently it is sometimes surprising to find out exactly how they viewed these causes and what they saw as the possible solutions. This book is written by Vladimir Zubok who appears to have been a member of the Soviet government during part of the time covered by the book and his views and statements are backed up by Soviet archives. The book seemed to me to be facts, as seen from the other side, not just opinion.
In looking at the period from 1945 through 1991, when the Soviet Union dissolved, the book looks at the actions of each of the Soviet leaders – Stalin, Khrushchev, Brezhnev, Gorbachev and the others – and I found it interesting to find out what was on their minds, how and why they proceeded as they did and what others in the leadership thought of their actions.
I found the book to be slow going at first and I was unsure if I could actually finish it. However either I got used to the somewhat wooden narration or the book became more interesting after the first 3 or 4 hours. All of the book is interesting enough and I found that it changed my view of the causes of some of the events covered. In particular it became clear that the Soviet Union was falling apart in it's last decade and that had someone other than Mikhail Gorbachev been head of the Soviet State things might have ended quite differently.
While this book stands on it's own I found it helpful to have also read “Revolution 1989: The Fall of the Soviet Empire” as the two give a very good view of the last 10 years or so of the Soviet Union's existence. The feeling that the whole system was coming apart is clear in both books. The end of the Soviet Union was an enormous political event and this book does it's part in explaining what led up to and transpired during that event as seen from the Soviet side. As such I think it is helpful in understanding the late 20th century.
As I mentioned I think that the narration of this book is a bit wooden and uninspiring. It is not bad, it is just not very good. Still, I believe this book is a help in understanding what happened and, as such, I feel I can recommend it in spite of the narration.
Yes to both
A Failed Empire was interesting in that most Americans are familiar with the Western perspective on the important events of the Cold War - the Berlin Wall, Cuban missile crisis, etc. This book uses Russian sources to reveal the reasons behind some seemingly contradictory policies pursued by the USSR, and highlighted the unwillingness of some apparently belligerent Soviet leaders to risk actual war. The book is long and detailed, but worth the trouble.
Conservative Catholic Curmudgeon
his contemporary Russian perspective on Cold War history includes at least a few scenes that are BEGGING for a dramatic depiction on television.
ESPECIALLY: In 1972, upon Henry Kissinger's arrival on a visit to the USSR, a drunken, sedative-drugged Brezhnev insisted on taking Kissinger on a bat-out-of-hell high-speed car ride. Brezhnev also took "a terrified Nixon" on a high-speed car ride while on a state visit to America.
I recommend reading this book after watching or re-watching the movie, "Planes, Trains & Automobiles".
An basic History 101 overview of an era, but lacking in colour until you get to Gorbachev, and to a lesser extent Brezhnev. Possibly because the lack of freedom means very little in the way of candid records and reflections in time of Stalin and Kruschev. . The Gorbachev period has much more colour in the form of contemporaneous comments from supporters and foes.
The basic question the author asks is whether personalities or historical forces account for the downfall of the Soviet empire. The author concludes that personalities were of greater importance than is generally accepted in contemporary academic historiography. However, the next question is never asked: is the importance of personality the result of a system of personal dictatorship, as distinct from democracies where historical forces are felt through the ballot box. A related point: the author condemns (albeit weakly) Gorbachev's "failure" to use force to hold the Soviet Union together. Another question is not asked, one that is related to the one just mentioned: was the Soviet Union ever anything but an artificial state and society, in the sense that it had to be held together by oppressive force, or not at all.
The narrator is uneven. Sometimes he seems to get bored and sounds like a robot. Also, when will audio publishers make sure the narrators know how to pronounce foreign names and words? The most grating example, but not the only: Levesque pronounced several times as "Levesk".
I've read where people have said this is a pro-Russian version of the events or the history of the events from the Russian point of view. I don't believe this is a case, this is more of an opinion book than a history book. I know a ton about WWII and a good deal about the Cold War and the author routinely leaves out crutical information to shape the story to match his opinion. The book does not seem to be very well researched, it seems to be a lot of conculssions based purely on the authors point of view. It's hard to recommend this book and certainly if you did read this book do yourself a huge favor and make sure you actually read some other real history.-
The book is fine. I found the narration very wooden, and too much change between voice tone between the various days it was recorded, and the narration is too slow.
It always takes a generation for history to be processed, and the wisdom of time shows in Zubok's insightful history of the failure of the Soviet imperial project. Instead of earlier post Cold War histories, such as Leffler's Struggle for the Soul of Mankind, which focused on American failure to deescalate the CW, Zubok instead focuses on the outsized role Soviet leaders and their conceptions of ideology played in creating the conflict and allowing for its peaceful end. Rich in fascinating detail and very well structured, this book should serve for a generation as the definitive statement on the rise and fall of the Soviet Empire, "one of the strangest (empires) in world history."
"Soviet Cold War History in an understandable form."
Being somewhat interested in the Cold War and soviet history I thought that I would "chance my arm" and see what this book would bring. I was not disappointed. A very well researched book which provides a behind the iron curtain insight into the era of brinkmanship behind the public face of both US and Soviet politics during the period described in the title.
I thoroughly enjoyed this book and its narrator, who does the writing justice, listening for hours on end it made me switch the tv off over Christmas.
A well written and compelling history of a period which to most European people of my age (42) will provide insight into the tension that led us all to live in fear of nuclear attack. It also provides a realisation of how financial pressure and political reform ended the Soviet Unions pretence to empire and ultimately the end of Soviet Communism.
Listened to twice and now on my third listen, this is simply because I enjoy it and there is a vast amount of information contained within, I will definitely be back to listen maybe three or four times a year.
Armchair history buffs this book is for you!
Report Inappropriate Content