Russia and Eurasia: Empires and Enduring Legacies, Spring Term, 2013
The Cold War
Schedule: Tues 3:30 – 5:00, SEM 2, A2109
Fri 3:30 – 5:00, SEM 2, A2109
This 4-credit workshop investigates the Cold War. The Cold War, or more properly, “the Long
Peace,” is characterized by a worldwide ideological conflict dominated by the USSR and the
USA. We will analyze the causes, the peak(s), the demise, and the consequences of this halfcentury global struggle.
______________________________________________________________________________
Assigned Texts:
Gaddis, John Lewis. The Cold War: A New History (Penguin Books, 2006)
Zubok, Vladilsav, and Constantine Pleshakov. Inside the Kremlin’s Cold War (Harvard, 1996)
______________________________________________________________________________
Workshop Structure:
1) One particular period of the Cold War will be the central focus of our discussion and
research each week.
2) Each student will select a particular aspect during two (2) distinct periods (periods listed
below in bold) to study in-depth. Students who choose “The Korean War (1950-53),”
for example, will read a book that places that topic within the larger theme of Cold War
research.
a. These students will then present their findings as part of a common research
group to the entire workshop.
All students will also submit ONE (1) professional book review for the book that they selected
to review.
BOOK REVIEW FORMAT MUST FOLLOW THE EXAMPLE PROVIDED BELOW (&
ON THE WEBSITE FOR ‘THE SOVIET UNION & THE REBIRTH OF RUSSIA’).
3) All students will read in common specific book chapters per week (below) that address
the particular period under scrutiny.
______________________________________________________________________________
Weekly Reading Topics and Assignments:
3/31
Introduction
4/3
Origins of the Cold War
Gaddis, Prologue
Zubok, chapters 1-3
4/7
The Era of the Berlin Blockade (1948-49) and NSC-68 (1950)
Gaddis, chapter 1
Zubok, chapter 4
4/10
Presentation Group
4/14
The Korean War (1950-53)
Gaddis, pp. 48-68
Zubok, chapter 5
4/17
Presentation Group
4/21
Late Stalin to Early Khrushchev (1951-54)
Gaddis, pp. 69-106
Zubok, chapter 6
4/24
Presentation Group
4/28
The Cold War Elsewhere (1954-1966)
Gaddis, pp. 107-156
Zubok, chapter 7
5/1
Presentation Group
5/5
The Cuban Missile Crisis (1961)
Gaddis, review pp. 74-82; read pp. 157-211
Zubok, chapter 8
5/8
Presentation Group
5/12
Détente, etc. (1966-89)
Gaddis, review pp. 179-211
Zubok, Postmortem
5/15
Presentation Group
5/19
Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD)
Gaddis, review disparate mentions in text – look to index
FIND ON J-STOR: “The Effects of a Global Nuclear War: The Arsenals,” Frank
Barnaby (Ambio, Vo. 11, No. 2/3, Nuclear War, The Aftermath (1982) pp. 76-83.)
5/22
Presentation Group
5/26
A New World Order? (1989-present)
Gaddis, pp. 211-266
Zubok, Postmortem
5/29 Presentation Group
____________________________________________________________________________
Writing and Presentation Assignments:
1) Each student will write two professional book reviews (4-6pp.). The book to be
reviewed will deal with a key aspect of the Cold War in which the student has selected to
focus on. All students must select two distinct periods, and two distinct books that
directly relate to these periods. Book reviews are DUE no later than two weeks after
your workshop presentation. Book choice must meet my approval.
2) Each student will also present her research and book review findings to the workshop
group as a whole. The more interesting a student can make his research presentation to a
class of peers, the more effective will be the learning process for all. Feel free to bring
any visual aids (maps, photos, drawings, PPTs, etc.), to impress your colleagues. (Yes,
yes, this is your time to shine!)
3) All students are expected to query the presenting panel (weekly) about their research, and
to discuss in detail the assigned weekly common reading.
________________________________________________________________________
NOTE: a professional book review is just that, professional. As such, please follow the
attached book review guidelines (below) closely. Reviews that do no adhere to the format
provided on the example will be returned to the author until the review is properly composed.
Guidelines for Writing a Book Review
When you have been assigned to write a book review, also called a critical review essay,
you will find it helpful to recall the words of William of Baskerville in Umberto Eco’s
The Name of the Rose: “Books are not made to be believed, but to be subjected to
inquiry.” This is what distinguishes a book review from a book report; the purpose of a
review is not simply to report on the contents of a book (although this will comprise a
small part of the review), but rather to evaluate it and provide a critical commentary on
its contents.
Format of the Book Review
The format of a review is generally as follows:
1. Introduction: Identify the book you are going to review. The author, title, date, and
place of publication may be placed at the beginning of the essay in the form of a
bibliographic citation. Then state what the author’s goal was in writing the book. Why
did the author write on this specific subject? What contribution to ou understanding of
history did the author intend to make?
2. Brief Summary: In the main body of the review you should begin by briefly
describing the content and organization of the book, along with the most important
evidence used. Don’t get bogged down in details here; this section is only intended to
prepare the reader for the critical assessment to follow.
3. Critical Assessment: Evaluate the book’s contribution to our understanding of the
subject. There are several things you should look for.
a) Identify the author’s central argument, or thesis. The thesis is not the topic of
the book but the specific argument that the author has made about her subject.
Sometimes the author states the thesis in the book’s introduction, sometimes in the
conclusion. Feel free to read these sections of the book first to determine the author’s
main argument. Knowing the main argument will help guide you through the rest of the
work. Finding the argument or arguments can be like finding the forest in the trees: it
requires you to step back from the mass of information to identify larger themes.
Sometimes a book lacks an explicit argument or thesis.
b) Identify the author’s perspective, point of view, or purpose. This can be
approached in a number of different ways. Ask yourself whether the author has a
particular emphasis, such as intellectual history, moral philosophy, or social ethnography.
Is the book informed by a religious or political ideology? If the book describes a conflict,
does the author, either explicitly or subtly, favor one side over the other? Does the author
state the purpose of the book in the introduction or conclusion?
c) Look at the author’s evidence: what sources did he use? A history of Stalin’s
purges based only on show-trial records would be one sided. This does not mean that any
conclusions from such evidence would be invalid, but the author should demonstrate an
awareness of any limitations imposed by the sources used.
4. Conclusion: Assess the organization and style of the book. Is it well-organized and
clearly written? Does the style or content of the book recommend it to a specific
readership? Offer a final evaluation of the book: How valuable is it? How important is it
to read this book?
Please Note:
All Book Reviews should start (read MUST start) with book data at the very start, in
this format:
The System Made Me Do It: Corruption in Post-Communist Societies. By
Rasma Karklins. New York: M.E. Sharpe, 2005. 363 pp. Notes. Bibliography. Index.
Maps.
Karklins states that too many citizens in Post-Communist societies complain
about the current state of their government and its bureaucrats, while few of them ever
truly acknowledge their own complicity in bringing such regimes to power. In short, she
argues that etc., etc., etc.