Focus on the Top Leadership

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.

20 people found this helpful

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.

6 people found this helpful

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.

3 people found this helpful

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.

2 people found this helpful

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".

2 people found this helpful

Ghost written by Vladimir Putin

Ghost written by Vladimir Putin. Revisionist history at its worst. Clearly written for Russians with an inferiority complex.

1 person found this helpful

wooden narration

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.

3 people found this helpful

Opinion, not history

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.-

5 people found this helpful

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.

Well written and informative

Enjoyed the book and the scope was well focused on soviet high policy and leadership