A good overview of the main events of this period: if you're just generally curious about the Cold War and what the main events and trends in it were, this is quite suitable. However, the sheer brevity of the format of this series of books (and 'Seminar Studies' is very good, believe me) works against a fully fleshed-out account of this topic. There are mentions of certain events but they lack a little background needed to explain them. I kept finding myself reading some remark and thinking 'But *why* did that happen?'. Still, a good read, and well-explained.

As an AP American Hisitory teacher, I was looking for a concise book that would give my students a good overview of the Cold War. This turned out to be an excellent book, well suited for my purpose. I have my students read three books over the summer as they prepare for my class, this was one of the three. McCauley gives a concise account of the Cold War, starting with the Berlin crisis of 1948 and ending with the fall of the Soviet Union. His chronological framework to the book takes the reader through some very difficult sernerios for the United States. McCauley starts off with some background material, giving the reader eight theories about the reasons for the Cold War, some give the reader many interesting things to think about as they go through the book. McCauley then goes through the Cold War and breaks it down into five generalized time periods. This makes it easier for students that may not know much about the time period to understand the Cold War. McCauley ends the book by asking seven challanging questions for the reader to ponder. This gives the reader a chance to digest the information and helps the reader come to some interesting conclusions. The sixteen documents that McCauley provides also gives the readers of the book different ideas and causes as well as consequences of the Cold War that may have been missed in this short but excellent overview of the Cold War.

McCauley's portrayal of Central Asia and how it has developed begins with the Mongol hordes, and goes all the way through the Soviet takeover of the region and how the Taliban rose to power. The book flows smoothly, and is very clearly broken into several sections detailing the history, economics, and developing terrorism in each of the countries it describes. The only truly annoying thing in the format is the way the editors have taken one key sentence out of every paragraph and inserted it in the margin in a large font. It would be useful as a quick reference, but it seems forced and trivial most of the time, and is very distracting when you are just reading the book straight through, not stopping to take notes.

Outside of the poor editing, the book contains tons of useful information, and is interesting without being too complex. I highly recommend it for anyone who hasn't studied the region and wants to get a good overview of what has been happening there.

A biography on Khrushchev...and Bulgarian Tomatoes, how do they relate? This biography contains numerous details which one probably does not really care to know, but is loaded with information on the guy himself and how he rose to power. I would reccommend this for IB history classes, which helps to understand the cold war. The end section, which contains documents is rather interesting and simple to follow. There is one document on Khrushchev's views on Bulgarian tomatoes, which is rather interesting. However, the British spellings can be annoying for American readers, but should not hinder anyone's desire to purchase this. It is deffinently great material to be used in a seminar.

I bought this book for its snappy cover and intro on Hammett's fascinating life. But the stories themselves are mostly a let-down. Hammett really hit his stride with the novels, and it's hard to tell from these early magazine pieces how good a writer he'd become. Still, the violence, corruption and sexy seediness that make his other work so much fun are here in embryo. If you're already a Hammett fan, reading these stories is like watching an all-star's warm up swings before he nails a home run. If not, let "The Maltese Falcon" or "Red Harvest" knock your socks off before you make the trip to Nightmare Town.

As a long-time fan of 'classic' noir/detective fiction (Hammett, Chandler, MacDonald, Thompson) and it's stylistic roots in the pulps, I have to say I'm somewhat disappointed with this volume. There's alot here in terms of sheer number of stories, but aside from the very worthwhile Sam Spade shorts (which bump it to 3 stars), it's very uneven in quality. Your taste buds will like the delicious descriptive and atmospheric elements (particularly for hard-core Chandler fans like me...his inspirations via Hammett are in good supply) but the story construction leaves much to desire. The better part of the book is made up of hastily conceived vignettes that will remind you just as to why most of 'pulp' writing was considered disposable.

These stories were printed in the 1920s by "Black Mask" magazine, one of the monthly pulp magazines that entertained America before radio and television. Some of the stories were repeated in later works ("Who Killed Bob Teal") and never reprinted in Samuel Dashiell Hammett's lifetime. The stories are still entertaining today, and also provide a glance at a life that few of us know.

SDH worked as a Pinkerton detective for years, seeking fun, travel, adventure. The stories reflect his life as a private detective would see it: a world of crime and corruption. Would this work damage an operative expecially when de didn't have a normal family and home life? Does this reoccur today?

Yet another British anti-Russian book. We've heard and seen it all before.

The most tiresome thing is the petty Putin "KGB spy" scaremongering. It is time to move on, Martin.

Mr. McCauley amazes. How a man could apparently spend 20 years in a field and still know next to nothing on it is remarkable. One school of thought has it that either McCauley is learning disabled or is so filled with xenophobic, patronising Brit-hate he fails to take notice of the reality outside his prejudice.

His perspective is typically British - "Everyone is rubbish but us". His hated Russia has made Space Stations, sent men into space, built modern fighter aircraft and has an excellent educational system, none of which the UK can claim as achievements. Internet use is far more common and widespread in Russia than the UK - because the UK has rotting 1940s phone lines and massively overpriced phone billing. In Moscow, trains run on time. In London, trains occasionally run on time. Unlike the UK, Russia has a democratically elected Head of State. Russia may be behind the UK in the world of Fast Food, Punk Rock and Football Hooligans, but it is far ahead in other areas.

McCauley's book provides, well-written, interesting information on the corruption that riddles Russia's government, hindering it's transition to "market capitalism". However, it is strongly advised that the reader have at least basic knowledge of economic principles/schools of thought (e.g.Monetarists, Keynes, Smith) before reading. An excellent read for anyone new to the wild world of Russian politics, McCauley's work is not weighed down by extensive technical jargon as are other books in this genre. I definitely recommend it!

This book is very thorough--it covers every perspective and is fairly objective. However, it is very difficult to sit and read through. My attention was very easily diverted and after I finished, I couldn't remember it well enough to write my essays.

A miserable, boring book by a miserable, boring, pompous old man. The doctor will probably recommend a little Where's Waldo to combat the adverse side effects of reading such a boring, hopeless, faulty book. In McCauley's own elite words, you would have to "kill every page" to save yourself from its terminal, dull, thudding nothingness.

Obviously a small book covering the entire history of an empire that ruled hundreds of millions of people for decades cannot possibly be exhaustive, but some coherency of coverage could at least be expected. Although it makes some attempts at covering its subject, in my opinion it suffers from being poorly written, its almost lackadaisical style, and a failure to properly introduce and explain concepts. For example, the reader is bombarded in the first chapter by Bolsheviks and Mensheviks, Left and Right SRs, New Style, with hardly a clue as to their meaning and historical significance. Worse, analysis is lacking or flawed. Its perpetuation of the mischaracterization of the coup of October 1917 as a 'revolution' is indefensible in light of information that has long been available to Western historians. In addition, its poor typography and lack of overall structure make its reading an ordeal.

All in all, I would suggest someone who is seeking a good overview and introduction to the history of the Soviet Union to look elsewhere.