A Failed Empire

The Soviet Union in the Cold War from Stalin to Gorbachev

By: Vladimir Zubok

Narrated by: Nick Sullivan

Length: 20 hrs and 13 mins

Publisher's summary

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.

Critic reviews

"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)

A different perspective on the Cold War

Would you try another book from Vladimir Zubok and/or Nick Sullivan?

Yes to both

Any additional comments?

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.

Great, but sometimes lacking detail

This book is a great in-depth overview of the Cold War. The only complaint I have is that he sometimes talks about treaties or summits without explaining what they were about. All I wanted was a quick overview. He talks a lot on out Potsdam and Yalta, but doesn't bother to say what they were, which means I have to look it up. He also mentions how events caused tension between politicians, but without context, I have no idea why. But overall, the books gives a very good history on the general progress and fall of the Soviet Union.

Good but too much detail.

I found the early post WWII the most interesting. I always thought the Russians made out like bandits. They did all right but they had manor setbacks. They wanted Austria, Greece and Turkey and with Turkey, access to the Mediterranean Sea. They also lost out in the Orient. The discussion of the fall of Communism was also enlightening. I had not realized how much of it was due to mismanagement.

Informative but bias with narrow focus

Strong pro Western bias. Immediately presumes democracy and capitalism are only correct path and constantly attacks USSR on moral grounds. It is fine to have that view but keep your feelings and judgements out of your nonfiction work. They have no place here.
Also mostly focused on Soviet leaders while ignoring most aspects of Soviet Society. The influence of individuals on soviet history is part of the thesis so that is fine but don't expect this to be a comprehensive history as it certainly is not. No close look at soviet military, economy, etc. Best if you read a more general history of the USSR first then read this. The author does make many interesting points, especially about Gorbachev and the end of the USSR.

Potential Docudrama

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".

The Cold War from Stalin to Gorbachev

"A Failed Empire" is a valuable addition to our understanding of Soviet history and the complexities of state collapse. The book is solid in exploring the internal contradictions and external pressures that undermined the Soviet system. Zubok draws upon recently declassified Politburo records, ciphered telegrams, diaries, and taped conversations to offer a fresh and nuanced understanding of the Cold War. The book expertly analyzes economic stagnation, political paralysis, national conflicts, and ideological fatigue as key internal challenges that weakened the legitimacy and coherence of the Soviet state and provide a more balanced account of the Cold War. It is a must-read for anyone interested in gaining insight into the Soviet perspective during this pivotal era. Review AI-assisted.

Foreign Affairs America and Russia

The points of view of this book is quite original and very entertaining. I could not put this book down for sheer energy of the narrative and insightful analysis. I wish the author had been tougher on the early history of Stalin.. I believe Stalin was a monster of historical proportions and we still feel the affects of this cruel tyrant. I especially liked the perceptions of American political leadership. I am somewhat surprised by the erratic and confusing policies of going from Roosevelt, Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, and Bush. I am amazed by the gyrations as each President succeeded his rival; it was dizzying and it defied logic. I can not see how Gorbachev could have saved the Soviet Union; the author indicates that Gorbachev should have arrested Yeltsin and prepare shed blood. Regardless, the Soviet Union economy was a basket case and beyond redemption. I was surprised that Leonid Brezhnev was the primary leader who sought détente primarily with the United States. Too bad Brezhnev's health and his association with Nixon undermined his accomplishments. Brezhnev utterly failed to address the declining Russian economy in an era of rising military costs contrasted the failing economies of central Europe. I did appreciate that the author made it clear that Ronald Reagan did not bring down the Soviet Union. This nonsense was perpetuated by the Republican Party. Another President, Jimmy Carter, was also incompetent in foreign affairs. This is a great and valuable book; I learned much very it and highly recommend as valuable information of American/Russian relationships. Thie analysis of Gorbachev"s personality led me to better understand the collapse of the Soviet Union and the eventual rise of Vladimir Putin.

The view from the other side

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.

You can't just say ideology.

Poorly structured, repetitive, and as a discussion of the fall of an early experiment in socialism, completely lacking in a material analysis.

The feel of this book is of a number of similar essays crammed together, not edited in to a more coherent whole, and retaining overlapping, repetitive explanations. This may even be a dissertation turned into book with minimal changes, I don't know.

Brief, superficial comments on capitalism's 'modernizing ability' versus the Soviet system with no analysis of the cost of each, and the engine of each. No analysis of the decline in the United States with the advent of NeoLiberalism in the 70s from Carter to present, and the parallels between capitalist austerity and soviet overreach, and who bore the costs of these measures in both cases. No insight into the orgy of privatization and expropriation following the collapse of the Soviet Union. And of course, published just before the financial meltdown of 2007-2008, Having lives in the 13 years since this book was first published, I find it painfully blinkered to the present state of global capitalism absent even a modest socialist system.

Basic Overview, Lacking Colour

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".