The Fifty Year Wound: The True Price of America's Cold War Victory

by Derek Leebaert

Drawn from literature, strategy, biography, and economics, a meticulously researched history of the Cold War, complete with valuable lessons for today, examines the social, moral, financial, technological, and political sacrifices that America made to win the Cold War--sacrifices that still impact our nation in this day and age. 20,000 first printing.

Genres: History, Politics, Nonfiction, Military Fiction, American History

Hardcover

First published January 1, 2002

Reviews

[Odhran · Rating 1 out of 5]

It's rare that an author's political biases so strongly influence my feelings on a book. But Derek Leebaert's fervent beliefs don't leak through - they splatter the pages with his bias. He's obsessed with proving the military-industrial complex doesn't exist - don't tell Eisenhower! (Not to mention that the technology he praises in the latter parts of the book only exists because of massive state military funding.) America's militarism is dismissed because it's not like Prussia's - I guess things are only bad if they are the worst thing they can be? The Great Leap Forward killed 43 million people, which is apparently totally not demographically impossible... (My eyes are rolling pretty hard as I am writing this, as you might guess.)

But the icing on the cake goes to the section on page 353 where, after talking about the American war in Vietnam, he goes on to say: "It was in Czechoslovakia that upheaval against real imperialism drew unusual courage from the young." (Emphasis mine.) His casualty figures for that? 90.

America can kill hundreds of thousands or millions in a war to retain geopolitical control of a country, but that's not really imperialism, guys!

So yeah, that should explain the one star. What could have been a good book, ruined by the author's inability to account for and control his biases.

Also, my notes say "the missile gap was totally cool", and I don't quite know what that means, but I am including it anyways because it wouldn't surprise if any of the ways you can interpret that are true.

[Bruce · Rating 4 out of 5]

Having read 'Arsenals of Folly' by Richard Rhodes, and keeping an eye on the current situation, I can see history repeating itself. I also find interesting the references to short stories, novels and movies, some of which are prescient. Such as the short story "Top Secret" which appeared in the magazine 'Authentic Science Fiction' in 1953. It's about a group of friendly men in business suits that have a secret facility in a small town. Turns out they were Soviets building an atomic device in the US.
One gets a different view of political figures. Ike noted "Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies...a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and not clothed." Yet he allowed us to become more deeply involved in Vietnam and Iran at the instigation of our 'allies' in Europe.
During Kennedy's administration, the Army Chief of Staff, George Decker, warned against military involvement in Southeast Asia. He was not re-appointed. A similar incident occurred during Bush 43's first term. Eric Shinseki, Army Chief of Staff, warned that an order of magnitude more troops would be needed in Iraq than Rumsfeld was proposing. He was not re-appointed.
The author also provides a brief description of the attack on the USS Liberty which clearly shows the Israelis knew what they were doing. But thanks to AIPAC, little was done and Israel still receives strong support.
The book actually supports the ideas of "Imperial Hubris". Various examples are given of intelligence and counter-intelligence failures and exaggerationsdue to hubris.
A couple of ideas stated in this book are: one, our alleged allies are not really out allies; two, perhaps barely noted because it is stated as pertaining to how the Soviet Union could have saved itself, "eschew the ruinous compulsion to devote so staggering a percentage of its total resources to military preparations."

[Michael Huang · Rating 3 out of 5]

Compare to other big-tome works, it's a meh. And if you make a reader go through 600+ pages, you really ought to make sure it's worth 600+ pages.

The book is sprawling and uneven. It starts OK, but at points seems to be a dump of notes taken during the author's research. It felt like the author is unwilling to let even a small factoid go to waste. As a result, a long chapter can feel like pointless and directionless.

--- Update ---
I was giving it a two-stars rating, but that was harsh. Here is the thing: An abbreviated version would be a lot more useful. It's a shame historians (or whatever the author's calling is) aren't trying harder to make the lessons more useful by more people. It's an important duty in a functioning democracy. Making your books less daunting and a bit more entertaining would not debase its academic value.

[Sam Reaves · Rating 4 out of 5]

A history of the Cold War and what it cost the United States. Leebaert spares no one in his examination of how the United States had little time to rest after defeating fascism, being immediately confronted with the expansionary designs of the other great totalitarian system. There's little doubt at this point which was the right side, but there was much folly and mischief involved. The epic of the second half of the twentieth century.

[Michael Bryan · Rating 3 out of 5]

Another book outlining the unintended consequences of the Cold War to our political culture, economy and conception of our role in the world. More in-depth treatment than some, but not more enlightening for that.

[Ed Goertzen · Rating 4 out of 5]

Interesting take on cold war - a bit too confident in his opinion on what they should have done differently. They didn't have hindsight like Derek has.