"at the core of the cold war was the mutually perceived fear of a possible attack, a fear that was fed by mutual misperceptions and mutual lack of understanding of each other." |
The united states sought "to create a controllable, responsive order elsewhere, one that would ...evolve in a manner beneficial to America’s goals ... its inevitable costs were justified, as well as earlier imperialist powers had also done, as fulfillment of an international responsibility and mission.” |
To Americans living at the end of the second World War, the world had suddenly become very different. A new weapon, the atomic bomb, meant that humans had greater destructive power than ever before. Countries that had once been dominated by European colonial powers were pushing for independence. Germany, seen as a menace to Europe since its inception in the 1870s, was divided up by the allies. The United States stood tall above everyone else. Franklin Roosevelt declared it to be the "arsenal of democracy" and after the fighting in 1945, it truly was the world's greatest economic and diplomatic power.
However, a threat was on the horizon. While Nazism, fascism, and Japanese aggression had been defeated, the influence of communism in Soviet Russia appeared to be steadily increasing. Everything about it seemed antithetical to American values and way of life. It coveted its section of divided Germany, which included Berlin. It influenced elections in Poland and elsewhere in eastern Europe. Winston Churchill, prime minister of Britain, declared in 1946 that an "Iron Curtain" had descended across Europe, separating free countries from communist ones.
From this time onward through 1991, the United States and the Soviet Union would be engaged in a massive struggle over world influence. On one side, America, seeking to spread democracy and protect countries from the evils of communism. On the other, Soviet Russia, seeking to curb the influence of American capitalism and imperialism, forces they saw as hindering the true wishes of people around the world.
The key question is why did this bad relationship occur? What really was at the heart of the matter? Who is to blame?
Early American historians, called the Traditionalists, argued that fault lay with the Soviet Union. Its push to spread communism around eastern Europe and organize a bloc of communist countries rightly put America on high alert. Its development of an atomic bomb in 1949 added to the deepening crisis. Policy makers saw Russia, now equipped with nuclear weapons, as a direct threat to democracy and freedom. Its support of communist movements around the world in places like China and Korea showed that it would not contain itself to one area of the globe.
During the Vietnam War, a new interpretation began to take shape. Revisionist historians believed that the United States was ultimately to blame: aggression combined with the expansion of capitalism, drove foreign policy decisions. The result was that America became what could be described as an "atomic bully," who argued that if other countries did not align with its views and perceptions, they were adversaries.
Sitting between these two interpretations is the Post-Revisionist group of historians. To them, neither side was to blame for the Cold War. The tension and hostility arose, rather, through misinterpretation and misunderstanding of each other.
Since the end of the Cold War, access to Russian documents and primary sources have given historians a fuller understanding of the time period. Historians now can do more objective research by incorporating "the other side" into their arguments. These post-Cold War historians take the stance that individuals have had a profound effect on the actions and consequences during this era. Some point to Stalin's hostility, for example, in the early days of the Cold War as responsible for holding a hard line against America.
It can be argued that neither side set out to actually produce a Cold War; they also did not relish the thought of a hostile and tense atmosphere that was eventually created. Both sides, as the primary sources in this section show, believe their viewpoint to be correct and the other incorrect. Policy is shaped by perception, and both the United States and the Soviet Union perceived each other in a negative light. The entire basis of this disagreement was about motivation: what is the other side trying to do? For Russians, America was concerned about capitalism and expanding markets (see "Soviet Views"). For America, communism was trying to spread its influence around the world and supplant democracy (see "NSC-68"). This disagreement supports the Post-Revisionist interpretation. While individuals may have a large effect, they contribute to the misunderstanding that arises.
However, a threat was on the horizon. While Nazism, fascism, and Japanese aggression had been defeated, the influence of communism in Soviet Russia appeared to be steadily increasing. Everything about it seemed antithetical to American values and way of life. It coveted its section of divided Germany, which included Berlin. It influenced elections in Poland and elsewhere in eastern Europe. Winston Churchill, prime minister of Britain, declared in 1946 that an "Iron Curtain" had descended across Europe, separating free countries from communist ones.
From this time onward through 1991, the United States and the Soviet Union would be engaged in a massive struggle over world influence. On one side, America, seeking to spread democracy and protect countries from the evils of communism. On the other, Soviet Russia, seeking to curb the influence of American capitalism and imperialism, forces they saw as hindering the true wishes of people around the world.
The key question is why did this bad relationship occur? What really was at the heart of the matter? Who is to blame?
Early American historians, called the Traditionalists, argued that fault lay with the Soviet Union. Its push to spread communism around eastern Europe and organize a bloc of communist countries rightly put America on high alert. Its development of an atomic bomb in 1949 added to the deepening crisis. Policy makers saw Russia, now equipped with nuclear weapons, as a direct threat to democracy and freedom. Its support of communist movements around the world in places like China and Korea showed that it would not contain itself to one area of the globe.
During the Vietnam War, a new interpretation began to take shape. Revisionist historians believed that the United States was ultimately to blame: aggression combined with the expansion of capitalism, drove foreign policy decisions. The result was that America became what could be described as an "atomic bully," who argued that if other countries did not align with its views and perceptions, they were adversaries.
Sitting between these two interpretations is the Post-Revisionist group of historians. To them, neither side was to blame for the Cold War. The tension and hostility arose, rather, through misinterpretation and misunderstanding of each other.
Since the end of the Cold War, access to Russian documents and primary sources have given historians a fuller understanding of the time period. Historians now can do more objective research by incorporating "the other side" into their arguments. These post-Cold War historians take the stance that individuals have had a profound effect on the actions and consequences during this era. Some point to Stalin's hostility, for example, in the early days of the Cold War as responsible for holding a hard line against America.
It can be argued that neither side set out to actually produce a Cold War; they also did not relish the thought of a hostile and tense atmosphere that was eventually created. Both sides, as the primary sources in this section show, believe their viewpoint to be correct and the other incorrect. Policy is shaped by perception, and both the United States and the Soviet Union perceived each other in a negative light. The entire basis of this disagreement was about motivation: what is the other side trying to do? For Russians, America was concerned about capitalism and expanding markets (see "Soviet Views"). For America, communism was trying to spread its influence around the world and supplant democracy (see "NSC-68"). This disagreement supports the Post-Revisionist interpretation. While individuals may have a large effect, they contribute to the misunderstanding that arises.
Dockrill, 2.
Kolko, 72.
Kolko, 72.