10. international relations- controversy2: who was to blame for the cold war Flashcards
what is view 1?
US orthodox view
late 1940s- early 1960s
USSR’s aggression in Europe was to blame
what is the context of view 1 (orthodox view)?
- historians such as Herbert Feis and George Kennan were leading academics who held this view- they both had previously worked with the US government and had seen a lot of evidence about the actions of the USSR in Eastern Europe
-Red Scare- the fear among many Americans that communism was seeking to destroy the USA from within- this led historians to publish only extremely pro USA/ anti Soviet books. If they didn’t, they risked being sacked or investigated by the government
what is the content of view 1 (orthodox view)?
- most Americans believed their foreign policy was not driven by self interest but by a duty to protect the rest of the world from Communism
- there was an idea established in America that the Allied victory in the ww2 was down to the USA so the public therefore believed that the USA could do no wrong
- in this view the Soviet Union was seeking to destroy the United States and would do so with any means necessary
what is the controversy of view 1 (orthodox view) ?
- this view suggests that the whole of the blame should be put on the USSR because they were communists
- soviet historians disagreed with the orthodox view and some western historians disagreed, although this could be damaging for their career
what is view 2?
US revisionist view
mid early 1960s - early 1970s
USA’s economic aims were to blame
what is the context of view 2 (revisionist view)?
- in the 1960s American public opinion about the government started to change dramatically
- events during the Cuban missile crisis and the Vietnam war led many people to blame the United States for poor foreign policy decisions
-US actions in Vietnam in the 1960s led to many losing trust in the US government due to the belief that the USA had supported a corrupt regime in Vietnam and caused the deaths of thousands of civilians through bombing raids, including the use of chemical weapons
-US actions in Cuba after Castro‘s communist takeover made the USA seem aggressive
what is the content of view 2 (revisionist)?
- The allies failed to offer the Soviet union sufficient help in the second world war
- Marshall aid was simply an attempt by the USA to achieve economic and political dominance over Europe
- these actions and Trumans ‘get tough’ policy forced the USSR to react defensively
-William Appleman Williams- after studying US actions in Cuba concluded that the USA had behaved like an aggressive, empire building power, not a force for good
what is the controversy of view 2 (revisionist)?
- The US certainly was trying to achieve economic dominance, but critically it leaves out the fact that the Soviet Union had already mostly achieved dominance over eastern Europe before Marshall aid
what is view 3?
post-revisionist view
early 1970s- 1989
- they were both to blame due to their own actions and fear and misunderstandings of each others’ actions- led to a cycle of action and reaction
what is the context of view 3 (post -revisionist view)?
manufactures led to a notable improvement in how historian food America from the early 1970s onwards such as withdrawal from Vietnam, the moon landings and in the 1970s the USA was building better relations with communist China and with the USSR
what is the content of view 3 (post-revisionist)?
-this view placed marginally more blame on the USSR and Stalin aggressive actions , but also placed a good deal of blame on the USA continually overreacting to Soviet actions and perceived intentions
-John Lewis Gaddis- responsibility lay within the beliefs and actions of the USSR especially Stalin, however the USA tended to overreact to Soviet actions because they exaggerated and misunderstood Soviet strength and intention.
-The Cold War was not inevitable. It arose due to fair and misunderstanding on both sides.
what is the controversy of view 3 (post- revisionist) ?
-The biggest criticism of this view is that it’s trying too hard to be neutral and balanced and thus is not as deep as it might be
- However it was widely accepted from the early 1970s right until the end of the Cold War in 1989
what is view 4?
new cold War historians
1989 onwards
continued uncertainty
what is the context of view 4 (new cold war historians)?
- with the end of the Cold War, it was possible for western historians to visit former Soviet archives in Moscow- led the release of the new Soviet sources which had previously been off-limits
-The Reagan factor- political polarity in the 1980s and Reagan who had followed an aggressive policy towards the USSR
-The “evil empire”-led to many historians using the new sources to either support or criticise Reagan‘s policies
what is the content of view 4 (new cold war historians)?
although the end of the Cold War and the collapse of the USSR led to western historians in the 1990s gaining access to Soviet sources and there was no cold war pressure to hold a given view:
-these sources did not bring clarity with historians remaining divided and interpreting these sources in a variety of ways to support their own views- especially US historians who thought President Reagan was a hero
what was the controversy of view 4 (new cold war historians)?
-One of the issues was that even with the end of the Cold War bringing a level of cooperation not seen since WW2, there was some discomfort around how president Ronald Reagan had briefly sparked a second Cold War
- historians now have a wide range of opinions. Gaddis used the records in Moscow to advance the view that his previous judgement had been wrong and the Soviet union and Stalin were largely to blame.
-contrastingly, Michael Cox and Caroline Kennedy- Pipe have found evidence that suggests that it was the establishment of Marshall aid that forced the Soviet Union to form its own political and economic bloc in self defence
