Cold War: For Forty-Five Years the World Held Its Breath

One must keep in mind that the original edition "Cold War" represented a companion book to the 1990's CNN-Ted Turner video series of the same name. Together, the two media affords the audience a superior historical account of that period. Nevertheless, the high quality historical research, analysis and composition recommends the book as a first-class stand-alone volume on the subject. Additionally, the authors collaborate to offer a valuable "Afterword" in the new edition, which nicely describes global developments since the end of the Cold War.To the one reviewer who complained certain events were hardly treated in the book: Cold War is not intended as a comprehensive chronical of the period- rather, that role is fulfilled by various scholarly studies that delve deeply into the subject. If one wants a high-quality overall treatment of this period of history, Cold War is your book. If you can get your hands on the video series, the book's value appreciates even more (like everything else, you can probably access it on YouTube). I'm a professional historian, so you can take that evaluation to the bank!

Great book for anyone interested in the Cold War. It was required reading for a Cold War class I took.

A distracting and annoying aspect of the book is an imbalance reflecting either lack of knowledge or judgment. In the background history of the relationship between the West and the USSR, the Polish-Soviet War gets no mention at all (other than a comment about the Poles invading the Ukraine and taking Kiev), though that war, and particularly the Soviet defeat before Warsaw, tainted the perspectives of the Soviet leadership of the 1940's, including Stalin. Additionally, the wrongdoing of the communist in the USSR may be touched upon in a few lines, while McCarthyism in the US gets pages. Events in the. USSR in the 1920's and 30's certainly affected, to the extent they were known, American policy towards the Soviets in later years. Kennan, for example, would have been familiar with Stalin's genocidal policies towards the Ukraine, something barely touched upon in a line. The author takes pains, it seems to me, to try to paint the US and the USSR as somehow equally to blame for the Cold War, disregarding the incredible differences in culpability. As a matter of national policy, the Soviet Union killed millions of its own citizens and tens of thousands of citizens of neighboring countries, often pistol shot by pistol shot. Is this some sort of study in political relativism?

Such a great book with precise and concise history of cold war. I love this book very much. It become my favorite War History book. 550 pages is worth it. Font Size - Greatest ( beacsue small font make you uneasy to read)

This book is fascinating. I have studied much about history & world politics over last 40+ years, but this book outlined much I was unaware of, and was also a valuable revision. An unnerving insight into some world leaders, and their complete inhumane disregard for the lives of millions.Read this book.

Comprehensive and well detailed ....an absolute read for anyone interested in modern world history .

The writer has put efforts in assembling each details of cold war. Its a good book overall.

I initially purchased this book as reading material to help me in my AS History course which is about US intervention in Asia (Korea/Vietnam), I have read both chapters regarding these areas and I have continued into the other chapters of the book as well due to my general interest on the Cold War topic.Pros:- Very well written, isn't too slanted towards one side as I have seen with various American documentaries and books regarding Vietnam and Korea.- Flows nicely and covers the entirety of the Cold War.- Easy to pick up and read, I read the Korea and Vietnam chapters first but I had no trouble jumping backwards afterwards and reading up on the 1945-1955 era.Cons:- Rather shallow in some points, in the sense that it doesn't delve very deep into the points and events mentioned, sometimes even skipping it out or just referencing it in a single sentence. The Korea chapter wasn't too bad for this but I felt the Vietnam chapter should've been a lot longer. It did a good job of the early events leading up to the war but it missed out the Nixon administration altogether and missed a huge gap out regarding the events leading up to the end of the war. I know I perhaps should have bought a book spefically about Vietnam but I have plenty of those already. All in all, just be prepared to do some research of your own in you wish to know more.Still a great book though, would highly recommended 4/5