What do you think?
Rate this book
A Brief History of the Cold War: The Hidden Truth About How Close We Came to Nuclear Conflict
The Cold War was an undeclared war, fought silently and carefully between ideological opponents armed with the most fearsome weapons mankind has ever seen. Here, author Hughes-Wilson takes a cool look at this war, from the Bolshevik Revolution of 1917 to the collapse of the Berlin Wall in 1989, and the dissolution of the USSR thereafter. He examines the suspicion and paranoia — on both sides — of the greatest stand-off in history. Written by one of Britain's leading popular military historians, A Brief History of the Cold War makes accessible for the first time one of the key periods to shape our world.
448 pages, Paperback
First published May 10, 2006
9 people are currently reading
83 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 12 of 12 reviews
July 11, 2018
A generally accessible narrative introduction to the broad timeline and events of the Cold War. The assertions and intricacies of this book should, however, be cross-referenced and taken with a giant pinch of salt.
It is regrettable Hughes-Wilson entertains so many conspiracy theories throughout, and quite heinously presents them as fact, because it throws the entire repute of the book into question:
Example 1: 'Tsar Nicholas II’s daughter Anastasia was ‘spirited away to England’ during the Bolshevik coup’ - this is an assumption made in the opening chapter and categorically false. She was executed alongside her family and her remains were positively ID’d in 2007. Hughes-Wilson presents this conspiracy of her survival as fact.
Example 2: ‘JFK was assassinated by the Mafia’ - speaks for itself really. A conspiracy that has floated around for decades, but once again, in a history book, which depends on ratified sources and informed opinion, this cannot be presented as fact, particularly with no source material to derive these statements from.
In all, I purchased this book to refresh myself on a fascinating period of history, and expected a measured, pragmatic and disciplined read from a military man of Hughes-Wilsons’ stature and repute. However, his dubious opinions - marred by patriotism and a clear contempt for Communism, and his willingness to entertain fantasy without referencing source material made this book more an opinion-piece than qualified history.
That said, his broad undertaking is ambitious and largely (about 80%) gives an entertaining account of interesting and ratifiable events, sadly obstructed by his forays into gossip and fantasy.
It is regrettable Hughes-Wilson entertains so many conspiracy theories throughout, and quite heinously presents them as fact, because it throws the entire repute of the book into question:
Example 1: 'Tsar Nicholas II’s daughter Anastasia was ‘spirited away to England’ during the Bolshevik coup’ - this is an assumption made in the opening chapter and categorically false. She was executed alongside her family and her remains were positively ID’d in 2007. Hughes-Wilson presents this conspiracy of her survival as fact.
Example 2: ‘JFK was assassinated by the Mafia’ - speaks for itself really. A conspiracy that has floated around for decades, but once again, in a history book, which depends on ratified sources and informed opinion, this cannot be presented as fact, particularly with no source material to derive these statements from.
In all, I purchased this book to refresh myself on a fascinating period of history, and expected a measured, pragmatic and disciplined read from a military man of Hughes-Wilsons’ stature and repute. However, his dubious opinions - marred by patriotism and a clear contempt for Communism, and his willingness to entertain fantasy without referencing source material made this book more an opinion-piece than qualified history.
That said, his broad undertaking is ambitious and largely (about 80%) gives an entertaining account of interesting and ratifiable events, sadly obstructed by his forays into gossip and fantasy.
July 20, 2016
A readable history, which pulls together many facts and viewpoints into a (mostly - see below) well-written narrative.
In the earlier chapters, Hughes-Wilson explains how aspects of the Cold War are rooted in Russian psyche and in the revolution.
Somewhat rare for British writers, he acknowledges the strengths of the U.S. and is candid about the actions of his own government. Full marks for being unbiased.
There are a number of points the book comes up short. Boldly declaring that the Mafia killed JFK (chapter 16) is one of them. This statement is based on a book titled Ultimate Sacrifice.
I have not read Ultimate Sacrifice. It was published shortly before this book was published. On the "who killed JFK" question, I have neither drank the establishment Kool-Aid nor am I a tinfoil hat conspiracy theorist. But it seems to be that this type of statement needs more learned examination before it is stated as fact.
Other minor things are irritating: misquoting Neil Armstrong's words when he stepped on the moon (chapter 22); and stating that Mikhail Gorbachev became General Secretary in 1983, and later stating 1985 (chapter 22, the correct year is 1985). I'm no history major, and if I can pick these things up, I wonder what else would benefit from a careful edit.
These are serious errors in scholarship and for that reason I'm rating the book as three stars. Otherwise I would have rated it four stars, as it is a good read.
In the earlier chapters, Hughes-Wilson explains how aspects of the Cold War are rooted in Russian psyche and in the revolution.
Somewhat rare for British writers, he acknowledges the strengths of the U.S. and is candid about the actions of his own government. Full marks for being unbiased.
There are a number of points the book comes up short. Boldly declaring that the Mafia killed JFK (chapter 16) is one of them. This statement is based on a book titled Ultimate Sacrifice.
I have not read Ultimate Sacrifice. It was published shortly before this book was published. On the "who killed JFK" question, I have neither drank the establishment Kool-Aid nor am I a tinfoil hat conspiracy theorist. But it seems to be that this type of statement needs more learned examination before it is stated as fact.
Other minor things are irritating: misquoting Neil Armstrong's words when he stepped on the moon (chapter 22); and stating that Mikhail Gorbachev became General Secretary in 1983, and later stating 1985 (chapter 22, the correct year is 1985). I'm no history major, and if I can pick these things up, I wonder what else would benefit from a careful edit.
These are serious errors in scholarship and for that reason I'm rating the book as three stars. Otherwise I would have rated it four stars, as it is a good read.
October 14, 2017
Loved it!
There are so many books which focus on one particular event or theme within the Cold War, but few which span the entire era. It took me quite a while to find, but this book was exactly what I was looking for. The author outlines and summarises the many elements of the Cold War very articulately, considering how complex and multifaceted it was.
It was perfect in filling in so many missing pieces of my very superficial and general modern history knowledge! This book also offers a very interesting reflection of the social and political state we are in at the moment; there are many parallels!
There are so many books which focus on one particular event or theme within the Cold War, but few which span the entire era. It took me quite a while to find, but this book was exactly what I was looking for. The author outlines and summarises the many elements of the Cold War very articulately, considering how complex and multifaceted it was.
It was perfect in filling in so many missing pieces of my very superficial and general modern history knowledge! This book also offers a very interesting reflection of the social and political state we are in at the moment; there are many parallels!
June 30, 2016
A fine history, except for when he states quite matter of factly that the mafia killed JFK, then moves right along, as if he thinks we won't notice.
July 10, 2021
A fun read and interesting but rather eccentric in places.
April 10, 2024
If your idea of a good time is listening to your eccentric uncle who’s smart and well-read and fascinating except when he starts going on about the Jews, then you’re in luck: I have just the book for you.
Retired Colonel John Hughes-Wilson served in the British Army's Intelligence Corps, which makes this a stronger work than my clumsy attempt at stand-up comedy implies. Hughes-Wilson is a respected military historian who served his country through most of the post-Stalin Cold War, from the Kennedy assassination through the fall of the Berlin Wall. He knows his stuff.
This lived experience colors his writing. He doesn’t even try to pretend to neutrality: Communism is evil, Western fans of Communism are dumb, and all the tyrants east of the Iron Curtain deserved to lose. At the same time, he’s balanced and insightful. For instance, his antipathy toward Communism doesn’t limit his pitiless and withering assessment of Senator Joseph McCarthy’s abominable crusade.
If you already know a good deal about the subject, you might not discover much that’s new. Hughes-Wilson himself acknowledges that any one-volume history of this conflict can hit nothing but the high points. As he writes, someday “there may be a full ‘official history’ of the Cold War. I do not envy that author.”
That said, what he does cover, he covers with a liveliness that’s refreshing compared to some of your heavier academic doorstops. His account of the fall of the Soviet empire is an especially fast-paced, virtuoso performance. If you aren’t well-versed in the subject, then this will prove a hugely informative and entertaining intro.
The book does suffer a smidge from the fact that Hughes-Wilson is eccentric in specific ways. He’s somewhat attracted to fringe theories, whether it’s the secret survival of Grand Duchess Anastasia or Kennedy’s assassination by the Mafia. Hughes-Wilson doesn’t even try to justify these; he treats them en passant as settled facts. This makes me cautious when he’s telling me things I don’t already know.
But what I found most off-putting was his mild obsession with Jews. I wouldn’t call him an anti-Semite per se, at least not without knowing a lot more. For example, he sympathizes with Israel’s unique security problems, and refers to its founding in the context of Europe’s “death camps.” Holocaust denial is one fringe theory he’s got no time for.
That said, he clearly doesn’t think America ever had a legitimate interest in the Middle East other than pacifying its powerful Jewish voting bloc. He skirts awfully close to the anti-semitic trope that America’s foreign policy is the plaything of conniving Jews. He explicitly brings up Jewish heritage (for instance, that of Soviet agent James Klugmann) when it plays no other role in the narrative.
I think in part this is a byproduct of the fact that so many early Bolsheviks were Jews. The question of why this was the case is complex and worthy of a dedicated study. But in a general history of the Cold War, constantly pointing it out without an obvious reason is distracting and annoying. Caveat emptor.
This is an enjoyable and informative book if read with a critical eye, part history and part idiosyncratic commentary. The clash between the United States and Soviet Russia was so epochal that its dead hand still squeezes our current affairs in ways we don’t always grasp. If you want to grasp it a bit better, this book by an old, battle-hardened Cold Warrior likely won’t disappoint.
Retired Colonel John Hughes-Wilson served in the British Army's Intelligence Corps, which makes this a stronger work than my clumsy attempt at stand-up comedy implies. Hughes-Wilson is a respected military historian who served his country through most of the post-Stalin Cold War, from the Kennedy assassination through the fall of the Berlin Wall. He knows his stuff.
This lived experience colors his writing. He doesn’t even try to pretend to neutrality: Communism is evil, Western fans of Communism are dumb, and all the tyrants east of the Iron Curtain deserved to lose. At the same time, he’s balanced and insightful. For instance, his antipathy toward Communism doesn’t limit his pitiless and withering assessment of Senator Joseph McCarthy’s abominable crusade.
If you already know a good deal about the subject, you might not discover much that’s new. Hughes-Wilson himself acknowledges that any one-volume history of this conflict can hit nothing but the high points. As he writes, someday “there may be a full ‘official history’ of the Cold War. I do not envy that author.”
That said, what he does cover, he covers with a liveliness that’s refreshing compared to some of your heavier academic doorstops. His account of the fall of the Soviet empire is an especially fast-paced, virtuoso performance. If you aren’t well-versed in the subject, then this will prove a hugely informative and entertaining intro.
The book does suffer a smidge from the fact that Hughes-Wilson is eccentric in specific ways. He’s somewhat attracted to fringe theories, whether it’s the secret survival of Grand Duchess Anastasia or Kennedy’s assassination by the Mafia. Hughes-Wilson doesn’t even try to justify these; he treats them en passant as settled facts. This makes me cautious when he’s telling me things I don’t already know.
But what I found most off-putting was his mild obsession with Jews. I wouldn’t call him an anti-Semite per se, at least not without knowing a lot more. For example, he sympathizes with Israel’s unique security problems, and refers to its founding in the context of Europe’s “death camps.” Holocaust denial is one fringe theory he’s got no time for.
That said, he clearly doesn’t think America ever had a legitimate interest in the Middle East other than pacifying its powerful Jewish voting bloc. He skirts awfully close to the anti-semitic trope that America’s foreign policy is the plaything of conniving Jews. He explicitly brings up Jewish heritage (for instance, that of Soviet agent James Klugmann) when it plays no other role in the narrative.
I think in part this is a byproduct of the fact that so many early Bolsheviks were Jews. The question of why this was the case is complex and worthy of a dedicated study. But in a general history of the Cold War, constantly pointing it out without an obvious reason is distracting and annoying. Caveat emptor.
This is an enjoyable and informative book if read with a critical eye, part history and part idiosyncratic commentary. The clash between the United States and Soviet Russia was so epochal that its dead hand still squeezes our current affairs in ways we don’t always grasp. If you want to grasp it a bit better, this book by an old, battle-hardened Cold Warrior likely won’t disappoint.
September 19, 2025
I guess this is fine as a broad overview of the Cold War and it does include some interesting thesis points, but I wouldn't want this to be the only book you read on the subject. This is more like the primer you read before branching off into some other material focusing on specific points brought up here.
Some of this is just because the book's so broad it lacks nuance. I mean yeah, that's gonna be pretty obvious to most people just due to how broad the focus is, but I feel like Hughes-Wilson's personal politics bleed through a little too much (almost an inevitability, given the subject matter) and he makes no real attempt to balance that, even when there was space for him to do that.
A lot of it is also that some of the stuff he brings up has either been shown to be factually dubious in the years since this book was published (e.g., how he presents the Gulf of Tonkin incident), or it's stuff that was always known to be dubious and is just Hughes-Wilson being a conspiracy theorist (e.g., his presentation of the JFK assassination, the Tatiana Romanov being taken to the UK instead of dying with the rest of her family narrative). If you're not reading other histories of these events or if you're not approaching this with a skeptical eye, then you might not pick up on some of these nuances.
I guess overall it's fine because most of this is stuff that really happened, if not in the way it's presented here, but this should be more of a jumping off point more than something you read in isolation. My real contention here is that it's not a very good brief history because a lot of it just isn't accurate, and I think the author should have known better.
Some of this is just because the book's so broad it lacks nuance. I mean yeah, that's gonna be pretty obvious to most people just due to how broad the focus is, but I feel like Hughes-Wilson's personal politics bleed through a little too much (almost an inevitability, given the subject matter) and he makes no real attempt to balance that, even when there was space for him to do that.
A lot of it is also that some of the stuff he brings up has either been shown to be factually dubious in the years since this book was published (e.g., how he presents the Gulf of Tonkin incident), or it's stuff that was always known to be dubious and is just Hughes-Wilson being a conspiracy theorist (e.g., his presentation of the JFK assassination, the Tatiana Romanov being taken to the UK instead of dying with the rest of her family narrative). If you're not reading other histories of these events or if you're not approaching this with a skeptical eye, then you might not pick up on some of these nuances.
I guess overall it's fine because most of this is stuff that really happened, if not in the way it's presented here, but this should be more of a jumping off point more than something you read in isolation. My real contention here is that it's not a very good brief history because a lot of it just isn't accurate, and I think the author should have known better.
May 15, 2023
A well written synopsis of the Cold War. It tackles all the main events from the Russian Revolution all the way to the fall of the Berlin Wall. These are further embellished with little side stories. Many of whom I had never heard before.
My only criticism is that I do not believe it puts enough emphasis on the conferences in 1940.
My only criticism is that I do not believe it puts enough emphasis on the conferences in 1940.
July 15, 2021
A very good summary of a complex period whose influence on contemporary politics still plays. Understanding how wars move from capability to technology Nd economy Nd information is an important lesson for analysing any conflict.
January 15, 2022
For: A Brief History of the Cold War - The Hidden Truth About How Close We Came to Nuclear Conflict. There is definitely a deal of bias by the author - however , there is no proclamation to the opposite effect. It is very accessible narration of the historical contents and forced involved, and a straight forward way to expand one's knowledge of the field by an expert's perspective. The inclusion of subjective opinion did not particularly bother me. What did bother me were certain misspellings in the The Chills of Autumn chapter dealing with the 1968 situation in Czechoslovakia. Both the presidents Dubček and Havel's names are repeatedly misspelled (in the case of the former as 'ç' in the place of 'č' in the surname; in the case of Havel as the focus 'á' added to the wrong 'a' in the forename Václav. In the chapter of "Tropical Interlude" concerning the war in Vietnam, the author refers to Black Americans as "blacks" and while the content does not include a single undertone of racism in any place and the book had been published in 2006 during different norms, it would be perhaps worthwhile for another edition with these errors sorted. This would be immensely beneficial as the work itself is greatly informative and would benefit broader audience.
October 13, 2014
A comprehensive overview of many aspects of the Cold War period, stretching from its World War I beginnings to the demise of the USSR. It concentrates on the relationship between the USA and the USSR, being the main players, dipping in and out of other world events influenced by their mutual distrust and antagonism. Some interesting comments about the thinking behind actions taken by several world leaders, including Reagan and Kruschev, made me rethink my own attitudes towards them. It had a lot of ground to cover, and unless you need information on particular events makes for a good history of this fascinating period.
March 4, 2017
An interesting and dispassionate history of the cold war without bias. Having grown up during the latter part, the most interesting bit is looking at things without the blinkers that were on when it actually happened.
Displaying 1 - 12 of 12 reviews