The Interpretation Of The Cold War Has Sparked A Number

DBQ Outline Intro Paragraph · Background/Context: The Cold War was a state of political tension after World War II between the Eastern bloc countries and Western bloc countries. Cold War took a significant place in between 1947 to 1991 which the two most powerful countries, United States of America and Soviet Union, were competing with each other over spreading the rule and showing off their arms without killing people. After the World War II, people in different countries started to think about who bears more responsibility for starting the Cold War, United States or USSR. · Three-point thesis: The United States of America bears more responsibility for starting the Cold War because it built up military powers and prepared for

The US and the USSR maintained their diplomatic relations, and yet, behaved like enemies. Many historians refer to the war as “diplomatic war”. The Cold War was defined by Fleming as “a war that is fought not in the battle field, but in the minds of men; one tries to control the minds of other.” Unlike a standard war, it was fought in the diplomatic channels and the United Nations forum. As the Cold War progressed, its nature underwent many changes during over four decades, however, three primary characteristics of the Cold War were recognized by the historians C. Kegley and E. Wittkopf, they are the

The Cold War, a period of sustained political and military tension between the USA and the USSR, resulted in various viewpoints concerning the cause of the tension emerging. Until today the question remains unresolved, even after the 1991 release of Soviet archives. The main point of disagreement relates to the roles that ideology played in the events between 1945 and 1949. Was it the strongly opposing ideologies, capitalism and communism, or power and material interest that drove both superpowers to the decades of struggle for global supremacy.

Brands' purpose for writing this book was to inform the reader of actions taken before, during, and after the Cold War. After World War II, the United States and Russia were the only two remaining world powers. Each had a conflicting method of government, which ultimately led to the Cold War. The two superpowers were at the center of attention for the better part of

Conflicts of national interest caused the United States and the Soviet Union to continue tension from World War II onto the Cold War, that lasted from 1947 to 1991. Although there was no direct military conflicts, there were constant nuclear threats. Over the past thirty years historians have divided themselves into different categories including: traditionalists, revisionists, and post-revisionists, and share their perspective on who caused the Cold War, the USSR or the US. Based off of three historians: Michael H Hart believes the USSR is at fault for aggressively wanting Communism to be spreaded, William Appleman Williams stated that the US is to blame for being too focused on their “open door” policy with foreign trade , and John Lewis Gaddis believes that their are at fault due to miscommunication and efforts to remain peaceful at the end of the war.

MacDonald’s article Communist Bloc Expansion in the Early Cold War, four schools of thought surrounding the origins of the Cold War are laid out. Specifically, MacDonald argues mostly in favor of the traditionalist school, which emphasizes the expansionist, offensive nature of Soviet expansion into Asia and Eastern Europe. Also, MacDonald makes an important point regarding the accuracy of information and historical texts regarding the origins of the Cold War, explaining that “The argument over the origins of the Cold War is important not only for historical accuracy, but also for the consequences it will have on theoretical questions and therefore on their implications for policy.” Not only is this true, but also extremely relevant to scholars studying the Cold War with regard to international relations, as it points out the importance of the correct application of paradigms and perspectives to the Cold War case study. In MacDonald’s argument in favor of the traditionalist school, he

The forty-five years from the dropping of the atom bombs to the end of the Soviet Union, can be seen as the era of the new conflict between two major states: United States of America (USA) and Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR). According to Hobsbawm, ‘cold war’ was the constant confrontation of the two super powers which emerged from the Second World War. At that time the entire generation was under constant fear of global nuclear battles. It was widely believed that it could break out at any moment. (Hobsbawm, 1994) The consequences of the ‘power vacuum’ in central Europe, created by the defeat of Germany, gave rise to these two super powers (Dunbabin, 1994). The world was divided into

My second interviewee was a male in his mid-thirties whom did not live through the Cold War period, but studied it in school. My younger brother’s definition of the Cold War was “long period of tensions between countries” (J. Rego, personal communication, May 27, 2013). His definition is similar to the definition provided in this course with the exception that he did not mention specifically the United States and the Soviet Union. When questioned about what aspects of the Cold War he remembers he stated “I remember Korea and Vietnam” (J. Rego, personal communication, May 27, 2013). Although he is not incorrect in his response, it was interesting to me that he again omitted the involvement of the United States and the Soviet Union. When asked about the key events mainly associated with the Cold

Writing about the already written history of the Cold War events have been relatively challenging due to numerous circumstances. Not only are authors biased, but there has also been difficulty in getting primary sources because of national security. Also, Soviet and Chinese documents had previously been cut off, as well as some of the information from their allies. Much of the Cold War history includes different historiographical approaches to the subject, with many historians fitting into a certain school of historiography. In John Gaddis’ We Now Know: Rethinking Cold War History, he doesn’t write about the entire overview of the Cold War but instead

After world war one peace looked inevitable. Everyone was wrong about this because a few years later world war two erupted. This great war was supposed to be the war to end all wars. In this war it was crystal clear who was the good side and who was the bad side. Almost everyone figured that if the bad side was defeated then peace couldn’t possibly escape us again. We defeated the evil Axis powers, but of course another serpent would rear its ugly head from behind the curtains. This period of a “cold war” after world war two has become one of the most complex and studied eras since America’s birth. This state of paradoxes, paranoia, and public disorientation has only ended a few years ago, but its

From when World War II ended in 1945 to Soviet Union falling in 1991, the Cold War had a major influence in international affairs. It was a continuous competition between the United States and the Soviet Union. Arne Westad argues that “the Cold War was a continuation of colonialism through slightly different means” (Westad, 396). I believe this statement is a description of World War II’s colonialism ways transitioning onto another international conflict; the Cold War. The Cold War began as a disagreement between the Soviet Union and America when it came to communism. The Soviet Union was afraid of America’s atomic weapons, as America was afraid of the Soviet Union’s growing army. Soviet Union was pro communism and America was pro capitalism. Overshadowing all was the threat of nuclear war. The U.S. is to blame for the Cold War due to threatening the “communist Soviet Union” in support of our own political systems. I can conclude this with points made from Westad regarding the Soviet Union’s actions and America’s as well.

The Cold War: A New History written by John Lewis Gaddis (a professor at Yale University who wrote other books such as The United States and the Origins of the Cold War and Strategies of Containment: A Critical Appraisal of Postwar American National Security) delivers a summarized, yet skewed interpretation of what had happened during the era known as the Cold War. Throughout the book, the author attempts to provide history of the Cold War, while adding in generalizations, incomplete facts, as well as flat out bias.

The orthodox view of the Cold War elucidates its inevitability due to the great ideological differences that existed between the Soviet Union and United States. On the other hand, the revisionists argued that it happened due to the actions that Soviets took and the consequential responses made by the United States as a result of their inflexible, single-sided interpretations of Soviet action. Yet, even with the backdrop of the early Bolshevik conflict in 1918 as well

However, the Cold War was not completely inevitable. Both revisionist and orthodox historians agree that the war “resulted from essentially unilateral actions by one or another power and that therefore the cold was an avoidable tragedy” (Crockatt 65).

There have been many attempts to explain the origins of the Cold War that developed between the capitalist West and the communist East after the Second World War. Indeed, there is great disagreement in explaining the source for the Cold War; some explanations draw on events pre-1945; some draw only on issues of ideology; others look to economics; security concerns dominate some arguments; personalities are seen as the root cause for some historians. So wide is the range of the historiography of the origins of the Cold War that is has been said "the Cold War has also spawned a war among historians, a controversy over how the Cold War got started, whether or not it was inevitable, and