The Interpretation Of The Cold War Has Sparked A Number

1694 WordsApr 6, 20177 Pages
The interpretation of the Cold War has sparked a number of heated debates throughout the historical field over how it should be documented. Who perpetrated and antagonized the world into a nuclear arms race that would last for decades? Was it a battle of East vs. West, or was it one of ideology? Did it even happen as some long-peace historians would suggest? Federico Romero, in his article “Cold War Historiography at the Crossroads,” organizes these historians into three groups; orthodox, revisionist, and post-revisionists. Now, while these groups help us better understand where historians belong, they more often than not exist on the penumbra of the categories, fading into other groups at times. However, historian Matthew Evangelista’s…show more content…
Without factoring in the uncooperative nature of communism, the totalitarian government, and Joseph Stalin’s paranoia, the story of the Cold War is incomplete. Cultural practices of the Soviet Union and the United States made the two incompatible and motivated the decision of leaders during the conflict in Schlesinger’s eyes. Only when the Soviet Union establishes a new way of thinking would they no longer be a threat to the United States and the world. While he is careful to point out that the events of the Cold War were determined by material factors, he says that ideology, purpose, and condition were key in shaping the world as well. Another historian who falls under the constructivist category is Melvyn P. Leffler. Now, it is strange that he and Schlesinger be placed into the same category seeing as how their theories on the Cold War are polar opposites; One blaming the Soviet Union, the other the U.S. But, rather than trying to find similarities between how the Cold War began, who perpetrated it, or how it ended, organizing historians by international relations
Open Document