What do you think?
Rate this book
A Brief History of the Cold War
The Cold War was a crucial conflict in American history. At stake was whether the world would be dominated by the forces of totalitarianism led by the Soviet Union, or inspired by the principles of economic and political freedom embodied in the United States. The Cold War established America as the leader of the free world and a global superpower. It shaped U.S. military strategy, economic policy, and domestic politics for nearly 50 years.
In A Brief History of the Cold War , distinguished scholars Lee Edwards and Elizabeth Edwards Spalding recount the pivotal events of this protracted struggle and explain the strategies that eventually led to victory for freedom. They analyze the development and implementation of containment, détente, and finally President Reagan's "they lose, we win." The Cold War teaches important lessons about statecraft and America's indispensable role in the world.
In A Brief History of the Cold War , distinguished scholars Lee Edwards and Elizabeth Edwards Spalding recount the pivotal events of this protracted struggle and explain the strategies that eventually led to victory for freedom. They analyze the development and implementation of containment, détente, and finally President Reagan's "they lose, we win." The Cold War teaches important lessons about statecraft and America's indispensable role in the world.
- GenresHistoryNonfictionWar
272 pages, Hardcover
First published February 29, 2016
11 people are currently reading
141 people want to read
About the author
Lee Edwards
68 books13 followersLee Willard Edwards was an American academic and author and a fellow at The Heritage Foundation. He was a historian of the conservative movement in the United States.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 13 of 13 reviews
January 5, 2021
Historical interpretations of the Cold War tend to differ on how harshly the authors assess the actions of the two superpowers (the United States and the Soviet Union) as well as the authors' views toward socialism in general. I had an idea that this book was going to take a more conservative or traditional approach to the Cold War based on the publishing company, Regnery History, and based on some of the blurbs featured about the book on the back cover. So I expected the book to take a hard line stance against the Communist ideology.
I was hoping for an intriguing conservative look at the Cold War to perhaps get a more balanced perspective. However, what I found instead was a rather naïve, biased, nearly jingoistic description of the conflict that almost resembled the anti-communist propaganda of the era itself. In addition, the history was so surface level, being a VERY brief history of the Cold War, that even when the authors did make a compelling point, such as the argument that it was (and is) better to support traditional autocratic tyrants than revolutionary autocratic tyrants, there was not enough presentation of evidence or argument to really make it compelling.
Let me sum up the book's overall argument: "USA = good, Commies = bad."
To be clear, I am certainly no apologist for Stalin, Lenin, Mao or any other communist leaders. These were terrible people, and there were countless atrocities committed by them and others under their leadership in the name of ideology. We do need to understand that. I just think it is more useful to try to understand why these people and the millions who followed them were willing to follow the Communist ideology for so long. I also think it is more helpful to be honest about the actions of the United States and see them as essentially looking out for the interests of the U.S. rather than being pure and righteous. That does not mean the United States is wrong to look out for its own interests, but the book flatly denies the idea of realpolitick and claims that the because the United States was founded on ideas of "freedom" it was justified in whatever it did during the Cold War.
This book has made me wary of Regnery's line-up of books. This is the second book I have read from Regnery. The first one had a chapter or two that seemed simplistic and heavily biased, while the rest was an interesting more conservative take on the subject. But this whole book felt like that chapter. It seems that Regnery's goal is to revise the liberal revisionists by doing exactly what many of the liberal revisionists have done themselves, which is to over simplifying complex issues of the past to fit their modern political/social stance by emphasizing one aspect or element while ignoring others.
I was hoping for an intriguing conservative look at the Cold War to perhaps get a more balanced perspective. However, what I found instead was a rather naïve, biased, nearly jingoistic description of the conflict that almost resembled the anti-communist propaganda of the era itself. In addition, the history was so surface level, being a VERY brief history of the Cold War, that even when the authors did make a compelling point, such as the argument that it was (and is) better to support traditional autocratic tyrants than revolutionary autocratic tyrants, there was not enough presentation of evidence or argument to really make it compelling.
Let me sum up the book's overall argument: "USA = good, Commies = bad."
To be clear, I am certainly no apologist for Stalin, Lenin, Mao or any other communist leaders. These were terrible people, and there were countless atrocities committed by them and others under their leadership in the name of ideology. We do need to understand that. I just think it is more useful to try to understand why these people and the millions who followed them were willing to follow the Communist ideology for so long. I also think it is more helpful to be honest about the actions of the United States and see them as essentially looking out for the interests of the U.S. rather than being pure and righteous. That does not mean the United States is wrong to look out for its own interests, but the book flatly denies the idea of realpolitick and claims that the because the United States was founded on ideas of "freedom" it was justified in whatever it did during the Cold War.
This book has made me wary of Regnery's line-up of books. This is the second book I have read from Regnery. The first one had a chapter or two that seemed simplistic and heavily biased, while the rest was an interesting more conservative take on the subject. But this whole book felt like that chapter. It seems that Regnery's goal is to revise the liberal revisionists by doing exactly what many of the liberal revisionists have done themselves, which is to over simplifying complex issues of the past to fit their modern political/social stance by emphasizing one aspect or element while ignoring others.
April 27, 2016
A decent summarized overview of the Cold War that is fairly quick and easy to read. The best thing about the book were the selection of quotes used. Not the most detailed book on the subject for sure. I hinted a slight conservative bias from the author at times but appropriate and not over bearing.
August 10, 2025
The book delivers on the brevity promised by its title. Although I agree with many of the of the authors’ conclusions, they were presented without much complexity or justification. I think that many topics could have been given more depth without substantially lengthening the book.
January 29, 2018
The Cold War was, after World War II, the 20th Century's second biggest ideological conflict. And before 9/11 and the War on Terror, the most immense of my lifetime. Nearly 30 years after the Cold War's end, historians and national security analysts are still processing what occurred. And, I'm sure, they're also wondering how it was fought and ended without firing a single shot. With BRIEF HISTORY OF THE COLD WAR, Edwards and Spalding offer a lucid, concise basal of this signature event in world history; this East-West chess game thought out and played on the biggest and most consequential of fields: Humankind's. The narrative's told from a conservative point of view. But I didn't mind this at all. Via chronology and close examination, the authors successfully draw a clear picture of the struggle. Of particular note is the probing, even piercing, scrutiny of which approaches and strategies (here, they're mutually exclusive) worked and didn't work. That -- and also which cold war actors truly grasped what was at stake in the duel between communism and democracy. The authors single out Harry Truman and Ronald Reagan -- the conflict's bookends -- plus Dwight Eisenhower as the three leaders who got it. No other personage on either side, not even Nikita Khrushchev nor Richard Nixon -- possessed their predecessor's intuitive feel. Give 'em Hell Harry and the Gipper corralled the Cold War's inherent meaning ("Communism attacks our main basic values") and enacted policies first to contain and then destroy the Soviet it. Peace through Strength, NSC-68 (recommended policy towards the Soviets and the communist world) and various doctrines are distilled. So's detente. Detente, the brainchild of Nixon and Henry Kissinger, was the American policy of relaxing ties with Moscow. Contrary to popular thought, it was practiced by both Gerald Ford and Jimmy Carter (previously, I'd heard the policy was in retreat from Fall 1975 onward because of a rising conservative backlash against it). But with Reagan's election as president in 1980, it was scrapped. Ditto the Soviet's under Mikhail Gorbachev, though his change was more domestic in nature. He didn't try to end communism. Rather, he strived to merely reform the country's party/bureaucratic structure. Gorbachev didn't set out to change the world, just his country. In the end, the release of forces he didn't envision nor could control, combined with America's calculated firmness, produced victory for human freedom. As well an end to a conflict without carnage.
Read
May 23, 2016 The book A Brief History of the Cold War by Lee Edwards and Elizabeth Edwards Spalding is a book about a variety of broad topics that alone are moments in history, but together form a bridge of information that leads the audience of the book to the understanding of the Cold War, without overwhelming them in history. The writing duo does this by utilizing both allusions to, and summaries of historical documents and speeches.
A Brief History of the Cold War is a book about the Cold War. It is divided into five sections, and the sections go in chronological order. The first section is exclusively about the rise of communism in Eastern Europe, as well as how this lead up to the actual Cold War in itself. The second section concerns the United states original policy of containment. The third section discusses any pivotal combat that took place during the Cold War. The fourth section discusses the failures and successes of the strategy of Détente, and the fifth section and conclusion discuss both the idea of victory in Cold War, as well as the lessons we learned from the Cold War.
In A Brief History of the Cold War by Lee Edwards and Elizabeth Edwards Spalding, the authors utilize a plethora of allusions to help keep the audience informed upon the purpose of their book, which is to create an understanding of the Cold War. The authors would often time explain history and then use an allusion in their explanation of history which can be seen here, “In his eloquent inaugural address in 1961, a young and charismatic President John F. Kennedy declared ‘that the torch has been passed on to a new generation of Americans--born in this century, tempered by war, disciplined by a hard and bitter peace’... “ (Edwards 92). What this does is removes the necessity of long drawn out documents that can be hard for the reader to read through, which would hinder the effectiveness of the book, which is providing a concise explanation of various topics ultimately leading to an understanding of the Cold War for the reader.
Another strategy properly utilized by Lee Edwards and Elizabeth Edward Spalding was summarizations. They would often take bland drawn out documents that would be of no interest to the typical reader, and then summarize them, as well as including direct quotes from only the keypoints of the document. In section two of A Brief History of the Cold War, the authors make an allusion to the Long Telegram, which was a telegram written by George F. Kennan that is sixteen and a half pages long. Lee Edwards and Elizabeth Edwards Spalding adequately summarize the general message of George Kennan’s Long Telegram in two and one half pages. They do this by providing the most concise explanation of the Long Telegram that could possibly be written, which can be seen here “Kennan made the inquiry an occasion to give his superiors ‘the whole truth’ about what the Soviet Union was up to as well as its intentions and to suggest a strategy in response” (Edwards 33). They then went on to provide key points from the Long Telegram to support their explanation. Which can be seen here “Soviet power is highly sensitive to the logic of force. For this reason it can easily withdraw--and usually does--when strong resistance is encountered at any point. Thus, if the adversary has sufficient force and makes clear his readiness to use it, he rarely has to do so” (Edwards 35). Edwards then goes on to point out how Kennan just perfectly described the U.S. Foreign policy of containment which was the containment of communism to the eastern sector of Europe. This is significant because the Cold War truly was the Soviet Union vs. The United States, and to have an understanding of the Cold War, the reader must have an elementary understanding of U.S. foreign policy during the time period of the cold war.
A Brief History of the Cold War would be enjoyed largely by those who have some prior knowledge of the Cold War, who are not professionals on the topic, and also aspire to learn
more about it. This is so because the book showcases many complex issues during the Cold War. Such as Vietnam, with prior knowledge of the Vietnam war one could understand the the connection between the Cold War and Vietnam.That being said, the reader needs the prior knowledge of a 9th grade U.S. History class, and without this prior knowledge this book may leave some confused. This book would be enjoyed thoroughly by those interested in history, but like many, are left confused by the Cold War. This is so because the authors of A Brief History of the Cold War did many minor simplification of historical events, which one could easily be able to draw lines and make connections to in relation to the Cold War. As well, the authors held the hands of the reader all the way to the point they were trying to get across per each section of the book, which is a big deal to those left confused by the topic of the Cold War.
In conclusion, A Brief History of the Cold War by Lee Edwards and Elizabeth Edwards Spalding, was an enlightening book concerning the Cold War. This is so because the authors properly utilized the rhetorical device of allusion, as well as historical summaries to provide all the necessary information to the reader, to leave one feeling educated, and facilitated on the topic of the Cold War.
A Brief History of the Cold War is a book about the Cold War. It is divided into five sections, and the sections go in chronological order. The first section is exclusively about the rise of communism in Eastern Europe, as well as how this lead up to the actual Cold War in itself. The second section concerns the United states original policy of containment. The third section discusses any pivotal combat that took place during the Cold War. The fourth section discusses the failures and successes of the strategy of Détente, and the fifth section and conclusion discuss both the idea of victory in Cold War, as well as the lessons we learned from the Cold War.
In A Brief History of the Cold War by Lee Edwards and Elizabeth Edwards Spalding, the authors utilize a plethora of allusions to help keep the audience informed upon the purpose of their book, which is to create an understanding of the Cold War. The authors would often time explain history and then use an allusion in their explanation of history which can be seen here, “In his eloquent inaugural address in 1961, a young and charismatic President John F. Kennedy declared ‘that the torch has been passed on to a new generation of Americans--born in this century, tempered by war, disciplined by a hard and bitter peace’... “ (Edwards 92). What this does is removes the necessity of long drawn out documents that can be hard for the reader to read through, which would hinder the effectiveness of the book, which is providing a concise explanation of various topics ultimately leading to an understanding of the Cold War for the reader.
Another strategy properly utilized by Lee Edwards and Elizabeth Edward Spalding was summarizations. They would often take bland drawn out documents that would be of no interest to the typical reader, and then summarize them, as well as including direct quotes from only the keypoints of the document. In section two of A Brief History of the Cold War, the authors make an allusion to the Long Telegram, which was a telegram written by George F. Kennan that is sixteen and a half pages long. Lee Edwards and Elizabeth Edwards Spalding adequately summarize the general message of George Kennan’s Long Telegram in two and one half pages. They do this by providing the most concise explanation of the Long Telegram that could possibly be written, which can be seen here “Kennan made the inquiry an occasion to give his superiors ‘the whole truth’ about what the Soviet Union was up to as well as its intentions and to suggest a strategy in response” (Edwards 33). They then went on to provide key points from the Long Telegram to support their explanation. Which can be seen here “Soviet power is highly sensitive to the logic of force. For this reason it can easily withdraw--and usually does--when strong resistance is encountered at any point. Thus, if the adversary has sufficient force and makes clear his readiness to use it, he rarely has to do so” (Edwards 35). Edwards then goes on to point out how Kennan just perfectly described the U.S. Foreign policy of containment which was the containment of communism to the eastern sector of Europe. This is significant because the Cold War truly was the Soviet Union vs. The United States, and to have an understanding of the Cold War, the reader must have an elementary understanding of U.S. foreign policy during the time period of the cold war.
A Brief History of the Cold War would be enjoyed largely by those who have some prior knowledge of the Cold War, who are not professionals on the topic, and also aspire to learn
more about it. This is so because the book showcases many complex issues during the Cold War. Such as Vietnam, with prior knowledge of the Vietnam war one could understand the the connection between the Cold War and Vietnam.That being said, the reader needs the prior knowledge of a 9th grade U.S. History class, and without this prior knowledge this book may leave some confused. This book would be enjoyed thoroughly by those interested in history, but like many, are left confused by the Cold War. This is so because the authors of A Brief History of the Cold War did many minor simplification of historical events, which one could easily be able to draw lines and make connections to in relation to the Cold War. As well, the authors held the hands of the reader all the way to the point they were trying to get across per each section of the book, which is a big deal to those left confused by the topic of the Cold War.
In conclusion, A Brief History of the Cold War by Lee Edwards and Elizabeth Edwards Spalding, was an enlightening book concerning the Cold War. This is so because the authors properly utilized the rhetorical device of allusion, as well as historical summaries to provide all the necessary information to the reader, to leave one feeling educated, and facilitated on the topic of the Cold War.
September 9, 2024
I earned my undergraduate degree in history and appreciated the authors’ A Brief History of the Cold War very much. It presented a succinct yet balanced view of Presidents Truman to George H.W. Bush and their foreign policies as related to the Cold War as well as events from 1917 onwards that led up to it. This increased my understanding of this period of history.
April 14, 2021
file under pro-amerikkkan-imperialist propaganda and/or better-off-in-a-recycling-bin.
July 5, 2021
A right wing revision of the cold war. Communism=Bad.
Reagan=God
Carter=Putz
Reagan=God
Carter=Putz
May 30, 2023
Concise and accurate telling of the Cold War. It hits all the highlights with enough detail to answer the "what happened" questions. By design, it doesn't delve too deeply into the weeds, but gives the bird's eye view of the era. A well-written book that you can complete over a few glasses...
October 13, 2022
I know it's supposed to be a very brief and elementary introduction to the Cold War, but it will be recognizably very biased by anyone who's studied anything more than the one-dimensional narratives about the Cold War.
February 25, 2017
It is as advertised, brief and descriptive. Largely absent ideological screeds until the end where the author adds his view of events. A good read overall.
February 7, 2017
Great overview of the most important events and people of the Cold War.
April 24, 2017
The authors, veteran writers on history and political science, present a concise and readable history of the Cold War, with epigrammatic descriptions of the main events, leading personalities, key documents, strategies and policies of both sides. They also briefly discuss contending views of Cold War events and present their own interpretation of the “lessons from the Cold War” in the concluding chapter.
Also useful for readers are a timeline of major Cold War events, an annotated bibliography of selected books and films, and a list of online resources;
Unfortunately, the book contains some annoying errata, such as its claim that Richard Nixon said in 1968 that he had a “secret plan” to terminate the Vietnam War, an urban legend that somehow persists despite having been debunked almost from the beginning. There are also a few other minor errors such as the misspelling of the name of Czechoslovak president Klement Gottwald (as “Gottwalk”), an error repeated in the index. But otherwise, the factual information presented here is accurate and based on extensive and solid research by the authors.
This book should be a welcome addition to any library’s collection of Cold War literature.
Also useful for readers are a timeline of major Cold War events, an annotated bibliography of selected books and films, and a list of online resources;
Unfortunately, the book contains some annoying errata, such as its claim that Richard Nixon said in 1968 that he had a “secret plan” to terminate the Vietnam War, an urban legend that somehow persists despite having been debunked almost from the beginning. There are also a few other minor errors such as the misspelling of the name of Czechoslovak president Klement Gottwald (as “Gottwalk”), an error repeated in the index. But otherwise, the factual information presented here is accurate and based on extensive and solid research by the authors.
This book should be a welcome addition to any library’s collection of Cold War literature.
Displaying 1 - 13 of 13 reviews