The Origins Of The Cold War - Assignment Example

April 28, The origins of the Cold War Introduction The origins of the Cold War have their roots in the conclusion ofWorld War II. As McCauley points out “[…] it was war to death, and the victor would inevitably be the dominant power on the European continent and a competitor to the United States for the supreme influence over world affairs” (McCauley, 6). The United States and the USSR had different perspectives, ambitions and understanding of its results. With one form of totalitarianism defeated, with the ashes of Nazism literally scattered among the living and dead of that conflict, the tensions between East and West renewed themselves. In some respects, this war was inevitable: the incompatibility between communism and capitalism, the differing opinions about the rights of man, cultural and ideological disagreements about the most profound issues including religion, personal identity, freedom of assembly, democracy -- all of these differences would (and did) come to the fore between the United States, Western Europe and the Soviet Union. The Cold War still remains (and always was) a topic for heated debates on both sides. American historians distinguish three main views on the origins of the cold war: orthodox, revisionist and post-revisionist. Each of them has affected policy-makers, policy analysis and people’s understanding of the topic. I find the post-revisionist view the most convincing in this regard, since it equally puts the blame for the Cold War on both the US and the USSR. The orthodox and revisionist views seem to provide one-sided biased perspective on the underlying events, claiming that one side of the conflict is guilty rather than the other. I believe that both countries should be equally blamed for mutual hatred and aggression, none of them was innocent, they were both equally involved in this game. In my essay I will provide my understanding of orthodox, revisionist and post-revisionist views, b 2. Misleading conclusions of the orthodox approach The orthodox approach blames the Soviet Union for its expansion into Eastern Europe, thus triggering tensions with the US. The USSR believed to be initiator of the Cold War due to "the intransigence of Leninist ideology, the sinister dynamics of a totalitarian society, and the madness of Stalin" (McCauley 88). On this situation the US found itself involuntarily involved in this game. The Korean War, American McCarthyism with its communist hunt and the fact that China chose the path of communism also contributed to the orthodox understanding of the Cold War. McCauley writes: “however, internal Soviet events had a decisive impact on relations” (McCauley, 3). Supporters of the orthodox view claim that Stalin tried to solve internal problems of the country by acting aggressively on international arena. However this claim that is not entirely accurate. Indeed Stalin’s aggressive domestic policy terrorized the nation: people were massively sent to prisons and Gulag; spies were seen at every corner, ideas of conspiracy rocketed. Constant fear of getting arrested did not contribute to the stability. In this regard the US represented an “external enemy,” which needed to be eradicated. At that point Stalin was losing grip over the nation and tried to get it back by implementing those extreme measures. Image of “external enemy” was maintained by political elites. However, can this negative perception of the US be explained in terms of Marxism-Leninism with its ideas of class struggle and a world revolution? Or there was a different explanation and the orthodox approach simply omitted it? Do Stalin’s actions represent and internal reaction to “American imperialism,” as revisionists would claim? Soviet Union was very fragile and devastated after the long exhausting war. The country barely had any resources for expansion into Eastern Europe; it did not have enough power to fight the new war at this point. In this regard I would agree with McCauley stating that ruined Soviet economy “dictated that the USSR should conduct a prudent foreign policy, one which secured maximum advantage without involving the country in any new conflict” (McCauley, 17). The orthodox view does not provide any valid explanation for this move, rather than saying that it was in nature of the USSR to be aggressive. It also lacks the deeper understanding of events due to the fact that historians did not have enough information on domestic policy of the Soviet Union at that time. Therefore this lack of information created a misunderstanding of motives and incentives behind actions of the Soviet Union. It is obvious that ideological factor played a crucial role for the USSR. It was the core basis for the regime. However new Soviet leaders were also preoccupied with their internal struggle for power. Everyone understood how shaky their positions were; therefore the internal struggle within the party was even fiercer. In the meantime, Soviets did not have that much of experience on international arena. Their judgments were heavily predetermined by failures of the Imperial Russia (McCauley, 15). The orthodox view lacks this understanding, therefore its conclusions are not convincing. 3. Revisionism – blaming the US Revisionism view re-interprets arguments posed by orthodox approach. It basically claims that the US was to blame for starting and maintaining the Cold War. After the Vietnam War started, the US was perceived as an aggressor trying to impose its hegemony everywhere. Meanwhile, it was believed that Soviets were protecting their national interests in Eastern Europe after the end of World War II, therefore their actions were reasonable. To the contrary business-driven political elites in the US were pursuing their own interests in Western Europe and were expecting to get access to Eastern European markets after World War II. Revisionists concluded that "American policy offered the Russians no real choice...either acquiesce to American proposals or be confronted with American power or hostility" (McCauley 90). It seemed as if Soviet Union did not have any ambitions and personal agenda on the international arena and was forced to respond to American’s provocation. This belief seems rather weak and refutable to me. McCauley describes revisionists’ point of view in the following terms: “American isolationism and European capitalist and socialist opposition were overcome by creating a myth about Soviet expansion on a world scale” (McCauley, 13). I believe that this “myth” of the Soviet threat was not artificially created only. Soviets themselves maintained its negative image in Europe by acting aggressively and due to the secrecy paranoia of their politics. McCauley points out that the Soviet Union appeared in a “new light” in 1945: “for the first time a whole range of Americans, from ordinary soldiers to top-level politicians, actually came into contact with Soviet citizens and their quite different attitudes and way of life” (McCauley, 42). Soviets were called “barbarians,” “hordes,” and “Mongolian bandits.” Clearly this image was not created by Americans only, but rather by Soviets themselves. No one really knew what to expect from them and no one understood their behavior, therefore this lack of understanding created fears of something unknown. At the same time the fact that Americans were pursuing their own political and business interests should not be underestimated. American businesses were looking for trade expansion. Ideas of ‘openness’ of foreign markets and equal opportunities were suggested as a result of it. Indeed American economy needed new markets: the economy was growing and they did not suffer great economic losses like the Soviet Union did. However, this market-seeking strategy is not something that any other country would not do in a given situation. McCauley writes in this regard: “[…] the USA favored the rapid recovery of the German market economy and this would not be aided by huge reparations from fixed assets and current production” (McCauley, 46). Therefore revisionist view omitted various aspects and put the blame on the US only, claiming that the Soviet Union had to defeat itself. Internal problems of the Soviet Union and its external goals were mainly misunderstood by revisionists. At the same time existence and emergence of revisionism represents an important step towards a different understanding of historical process. In this regard this different understanding signifies a drift from narrow perspective and ideological deadlock to a broadened understanding of the historical issue. 4. Post-revisionism – an alternative view Taking into consideration that both the orthodox and revisionist views provide a narrow perspective on events of the Cold War, post-revisionism gives an alternative stance. This approach claims that both sides of the conflict should be equally blamed for the Cold War. Both of them pursued their own interests and hidden agendas in the armaments drive and ideological fight. Therefore both sides should bear the responsibility equally. At the same time some hypotheses of revisionism were not fully rejected. For example, post-revisionists shared the belief that Stalin was more preoccupied with security issues of the Soviet Union, rather than with creating a new super power right after World War II. However post-revisionists also concluded that Western leaders were unaware of Stalin’s motives, therefore they had reasonable concerns regarding his next moves. Most importantly post-revisionists tried to analyze events from both sides: Soviet and American, since every side had its own motives and perspectives. After the end of the World War II both American and Soviet decision-makers misread each other’s behavior, due to the fact that they were lacking simple knowledge about the counter party. The US underestimated the value of security issues for the USSR, while Soviets considered “US policy as aggressive capitalist expansionism and [hardened] their own attitude in their sphere of interest” (McCauley, 50). This misunderstanding occurred due to the fact that both countries had little understanding of each other’s interests. 5. Conclusion It is clear that supporters of both the orthodox and revisionist views are able to find historical documents in their favor. However, only the post-revisionist view can provide valid explanations of events and is able to conclude that both participants of the Cold War were equally engaged in it. Both the US and the USSR manipulated each other, trying to exercise their power. It is clear that a different understanding of the Cold War emerged only after it was already over. Since the world stopped being polarized and ordinary people stopped thinking in terms of the predominant ideology, it became possible to conclude that both countries should be equally blamed for the war. Conclusions of the post-revisionism seem rather obvious to me now, but I it was not easy to arrive at such conclusions during the time of Korean or Vietnam Wars. Therefore the orthodox and revisionist views were accurate at the time they appeared, but they are not valid anymore. In this regard I would agree with McCauley, who pointed out that “Washington never tried to see the problems from Moscow’s point of view” (McCauley, 84) due to the fact that “it’s sources of information in the Soviet Union were poor” (McCauley, 85). These factors affected the orthodox understanding of the Cold War: the USSR’s perspective on events was simply ignored and disregarded. This information asymmetry predetermined Soviet-American relations and led to misleading historical conclusions. It is only possible to notice those fallacies from the current perspective and knowledge. However, there are still many unreleased documents about the Cold War in Russian archives. That is why there might be a chance that when they are be released; the Cold War perception will be shifted again. Those classified documents in Russian archives are still considered to be contradictory. Even though the Cold War is over it still remains a very controversial topic for both American and Russian political elites, since they have not arrived at a common conclusion regarding the results of the war. Read More