When Historians Discuss The Cold War, There Are 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

“Was Truman Responsible for the Cold War”, well, according to author Arnold A. Offner, his simplistic answer is an obvious “yes.” “Taking Sides” is a controversial aspect of the author’s interpretation for justifying his position and perception of “Truman’s” actions. This political approach is situated around the “Cold War” era in which the author scrutinizes, delineates, and ridicules his opponents by claiming “I have an ace in the hole and one showing” (SoRelle 313). Both authors provide the readers with intuitive perceptions for their argumentative approaches in justifying whether or not “Truman” contributed to the onset of the “Cold War.” Thus far, it would be hard-pressed to blame one single individual, President or not, for 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.

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.

There are many opinions on who started the Cold War, whether it be the USSR’s fault or the United States. With old trust issues rising up again, the next forty years resulted in constant tension and aggression between the two rival powers. But, when it’s time to place the blame for this tedious conflict, it is clear the United States can be blamed, for they were constantly imposing their greater power, and led the USSR to lose their trust due to international acts of aggression from the US. From 1945-1991 the US took action abroad to stop the USSR from gaining more global power, they misinterpreted Soviet motives, and threatened the USSR with acts of aggression through major bomb threats. With both nations having different motives after WWII,

By 1945, the end of World War II was soon arriving and the tension between the United States and the Soviet Union had grew stronger(Britannica). Because of the hostility between the United States and the Soviet Union, the Soviets had created a “left-wing” government, in which politicians support social equality in contrast to social hierarchy. Americans and British had feared Soviet’s dominating all eastern European. In contrast, the Soviets wanted to maintain their control of eastern Europe to keep them safe from any threats from Germany and to spread communism worldwide. However, the main difference between the United States and the Soviet Union was how they chose to govern their states. While the United States held a democratic

John Lewis Gaddis, is a leading American Historian of the Cold War. He is the Professor of history at Yale University. He is already the author of six books on the same subject. The Cold War: A New History, however, has been written on a less cosmic level. He has distilled a life time of research into this short but comprehensive book. He has given new avenues to old controversies in worldly and stylish, yet direct and plain-spoken manner. The book offers a lot of summaries to intricate historical issues and provides new avenues of thinking about conflict which arose out of pre-emption and ended in the hope for the world.

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

Schlesinger’s first argument provides reasoning for some of the questionable actions of the US leading to the outbreak of the cold war that other schools of though have picked up on. He argues when summarising the period ‘none showed great tactical consistency, or cared much about it’, which implies the actions of the US could be characterised as aggressive, for example. Schlesinger is conveying that there was merely a lack of forward planning and strategic thinking rather than more selfish motives movies expressed in the revisionist argument.

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

Larkin (1965), in his exam revision book European History for Certificate Classes, posited that the ‘Cold War’ was a mixture of religious crusade in favor of one ideology or the other, and of the most ruthless power politics, striking out for advantage or expansion not only in Europe but all over the world. How historians analyze the Cold War has been a major concern, such as the problems when and where the Cold War began; whether it was inevitable; and why states and individual in an international system acted in a particular