Changing Interpretations of the Responsibility for Cold War Tensions

1940s-60s – Interpretation One

The Soviet Union was to blame
- The Cold War was caused by aggressive expansion by Soviet leaders who wanted to spread communism to the whole world
US orthodox view
- Early US explanation of the Cold War were created by academics who had worked for the government and in an atmosphere of fierce anti-communism in the USA
It was obvious to popular US historians and commentators at the time that Stalin and the USSR were to blame
The main orthodox historians who argued this were Thomas Bailey, George Kennan and Herbert Feis
- Bailey argued that the USSR caused the Cold War by their actions in Eastern Europe after WWII, which they did wanting a world revolution
- Kennan argued that Stalin needed a threatening enemy to show his strength to his people, so he provoked the USA
- Feis argued that the USSR was trying to spread communism, so the USA had been forced to respond with the Truman Doctrine and Marshall Plan
This view was popular as most Americans believed that their own foreign policy was driven by a desire to improve the world rather than by self-interest and that it was the USA’s duty to stop the USSR’s spread of communism
Three things influenced the US orthodox view; the ‘Red Scare’ in the USA, personal experience and lack of sources
- Since the Russian Revolution of 1917, the USA worried about communist agents operating there
  - In the 1920s, many communists were arrested; this happened for a second time in the 1940s and in the 1950s, a claim was made that the US government was riddled with Soviet spies
  - Many intellectuals were accused of being communist sympathisers and some were monitored by intelligence services
  - The numerous Red Scares made historians fear what would happen if they considered an explanation other than that the USSR was responsible
    - One historian did, and he was told not to publish it as it would ruin his reputation
- Several of the historians writing the Orthodox accounts had experience in the government during this period
  - Kennan had been a senior US government official and was one of the key figures in the development of the US policy of containment
  - Feis had been an adviser in the US government at the start of the Cold War
- US sources were highly sensitive and secret, meaning that historians could not access them
  - Anything available to them and the public was likely to have been influenced by propaganda
  - The US historians had no hope of accessing Soviet sources
The orthodox view was widely accepted by academics, politicians and the public during the Cold War, this was helped by it being promoted in films and appearing in books, comics and newspapers
Despite the wide acceptance in the USA, the view was challenged
- The Soviet historians and commentators were the main challengers of the US orthodox view and they viewed the opposite
  - Soviets, just like Americans, wanted to protect their country’s reputation as they were equally patriotic
  - Soviet historians also worked in a climate of censorship and risked their careers if they did not oppose the US orthodox view; however, many genuinely believed what they wrote
  - Soviet historians could not access sources from either country
- There were also challengers from the USA, William Appleman Williams argued that the Cold War was instigated by the USA and that Soviet actions were defensive
- A British historian, E. H. Carr admired the USSR and in an account of the Soviet Union’s history, he largely blamed the Cold War on the USA

1960s-70s – Interpretation Two

The USA was to blame
- The Cold War was caused by the aggressive actions of the USA, particularly its determination to ensure that it would dominate trade in Europe and Asia
US revisionist view
- The Vietnam War and other events changed people’s ideas
Many academic historians became critical of the US orthodox view and made other claims
- Orthodox historians had overstated the communist threat
- Orthodox historians were writing a justification for US policy in the years after WWII rather than writing history
The revisionists came up with new interpretations
- The USA provoked the Cold War by trying to achieve economic dominance in Europe and Asia, a policy known as ‘Open Door’, which would give the USA access to states that it could then dominate economically and politically
- The Marshall plan was designed to prevent a post-war economic depression because that would harm US trade; that’s why the USA only helped states with similar ideologies
- Truman’s get-tough attitude made the Soviets feel threatened, and forced the USSR to act aggressively
Key revisionists were US historians Joyce and Gabriel Kolko and Thomas G. Paterson
- Joyce and Gabriel believed that “American foreign policy in the years 1945-54 was a drive to expand American capitalism through the world” and “because Communism was its greatest enemy, they opposed it everywhere”, and that “the Soviet threat to the West was a mirage conjured up by the Truman administration” so the “Marshall Plan was designed to shape Western Europe’s economy to suit Washington”
- Paterson believed social development in the USA promoted greater acceptance of the USSR who adopted similar policies
- At the tame, Senator Wayne Morse voted against the Tonkin Gulf Resolution and stated that “our hands are dripping with blood in Southeast Asia”
The Cuban Revolution and the Vietnam War fuelled the revisionist interpretation
- After studying US actions in Cuba after Castro’s communist takeover in 1958, in 1959, William Appleman Williams was the first revisionist
  - He claimed that the USA behaved more like an aggressive, empire-building power than a force for good, trying to stop the Soviets developing their own empire
- In the 1960s, young academics began making a similar argument since the USA were supporting a corrupt regime in Vietnam
  - They killed tens of thousands of civilians in bombing raids, used chemical weapons and neglected the poorest US citizens, proving they were only interested in dominance
Among historians, the revisionist view created a stir, but the politicians were less receptive to the revisionist view
- Popular opinion was divided; older people, generally more patriotic felt uncomfortable with the revisionist view, however there was a strong youth counterculture at the time, and many agreed with the revisionist view
Challenges came mainly from traditionalists who clung to the orthodox view

1970s-89 – Interpretation Three

They just couldn’t understand each other
- The Cold War was caused by the way the USA and the USSR each reacted to the actions of the other side, and those reactions were largely based on misunderstanding and mistrust
Post-revisionist view
- Historians tries to find common ground between the first two interpretations
John Lewis Gaddis was the leading post-revisionist historian; he tried to combine relevant pieces of the orthodox and revisionist views
- He rejected the revisionist view that the Cold War was caused solely by US aggression and expansion
- He argued that the USSR’s beliefs and actions, especially Stalin, held a substantial responsibility for the Cold War
- He accepted that US policy misunderstood and exaggerated the threat of the USSR and overreacted to their actions, causing the USSR to overreact in turn
- He believed that the Cold War was a result of fear, confusion and misunderstanding from both sides and that it was not inevitable
This approach came about largely due to intense historical debate and the thawing of the Cold War
- This period was full of historical debate and historians wanted to come up with better theories than their colleagues; Gaddis and other post-revisionists thought that it was too simplistic to blame one side or the other
- Historians were influenced by Nixon and his successors beginning the process of détente after the Vietnam War
  - The SALT was agreed in 1972 and they met in Helsinki, Finland in 1975
Among historians, this view provided a more complex approach as many recognised weaknesses of the orthodox view and were uncomfortable with the revisionist view
overall, this view was widely accepted and dominated the thinking of historians about the Cold War, however it was challenged
- Carolyn Eisenberg, a revisionist, claimed it was the same as the orthodox view with some archive references to back it up

1989-2010s – Interpretation Four

We still can’t be sure
- Access to Soviet archives still leaves historians divided; the sources confirmed what people already thought – that the USA / USSR were to blame
The new Cold War historians
- With the ending of the Cold War, both Soviet and US historians had greater access to Soviet source material
After the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989 and the collapse of the USSR, western historians could access Soviet archives which served to strengthen existing divisions
- Gaddis, a leading post-revisionist, revised his views closer to the orthodox view
  - It is written by a US reviewer of Gaddis’ book that in unequivocal terms, he blames the Cold War on Stalin’s personality, on authoritarian government, and on Communist ideology”
- British Historians Michael Cox and Caroline Kennedy-Pipe reached conclusions closer to the revisionists
  - They said “Stalin sealed the fate of Eastern Europe” but said that the “Marshall Plan propelled the USSR into a more antagonistic and hostile stance”
The end of the cold war aided this approach to come about because it led to the availability of new Soviet sources and the Reagan factor
- Millions of new sources were available to consider by western and Soviet historians
- Ronald Reagan named the Soviet Union the ‘Evil Empire’ and took an aggressive approach to it; many supported his claim with documentation and others found evidence to show the he was the aggressor
This view was expected to produce a final interpretation that all sides could accept, however due to Gaddis, being a prominent historian, revising his views, some historians were convinced by it, but others believe that he adapted his views according to his political views

Explain why not all historians would agree with Interpretation C. [20]

Do you think that most historians and commentators would agree with Interpretation D? [20]

How fair is Interpretation A on the Soviet Union? [25]

How far do you accept the view of Interpretation B on the USA? [25]