|
The
Cold War: A Military History
-David
Miller
Correct me if I’m wrong,
but is not a military history supposed to be a history text, rather than
background information? While
I was reading this book, I expected a history of the cold war in military
terms, instead of a collection of cold war information.
That said, the information
presented in the book is very interesting.
There is a brief description of Europe and the world at the end of
WW2, and then the author discusses the foundation of NATO and the Warsaw
Pact. There is considerable
time spent on the structure of the two organisations, |
|
|
including
selfishness displayed by both super powers, and on their different
responses to crises. The
background to each crisis is discussed briefly as well.
The real strength of the
book is in the information it provides on the two sides.
The powers military strength is discussed in all phases (apart from
space and ASAT technology), with information on tanks, ships and troop
equipment. I was unaware,
before now, that the soviets had naval infantry serving on their ships.
The USSR’s war plan, which called for a massive charge across the
central European plain, was interesting to read, although I considered it
self-evident that such a charge would lead to a nuclear attack.
Perhaps appropately, about
a fifth of the book discusses the two sides nuclear capabilities and the
weapons and effects they would have used and faced. There
are, however, several glaring weaknesses.
The author talks in general terms about the cost and effect of the
cold war, he provides little precise data on that aspect of the war, and
many of the small wars fought against a cold war background are ignored.
The Falklands, which was very important to the cold war, is barely
mentioned, the Yom Kipper and Algerian wars are not mentioned at all.
There are also curious
omissions. China, the Middle
East and Cuba are hardly discussed, despite being very important to the
Cold War. No attention is
paid at all to space, despite its importance.
Overall, this book provides interesting and useful titbits of information,
but is not a history in any real sense, just a factbook.
|
