Cold War
Analyzing Different Perspectives
The term "cold war" refers to a type of conflict that does not utilize any direct military action, in the modern lexicon another way to refer to this would be no military interventions and "no boots" on the ground. However, though the military does not engage the enemy directly, they are often engaged in many indirect pursuits against their target including tasks such as gathering intelligence, building capabilities, using espionage, and sometimes even fighting a proxy war. Yet not just the military is involved in fighting a cold war, the economies of the two countries can be used against each other as well as various political strategies. There are also propaganda campaigns instituted in the countries to attempt to align the populations to the aims of its leaders.
"The Cold War" was the most extreme example of such a form of conflict in history. The United States and Russia, two great world super powers at the time, battled over international influence, economic activity, the development of many sciences and technologies, as well as ideological positions. The differences in the ideological positions of the parties involved also generated significantly different historical accounts of the events that unfolded in the Cold War. For example, those sympathetic to the Soviet Union might look at the circumstances through a lens that the U.S. was the aggressor while someone from a U.S. perspective might see the opposite situation. This analysis will compare the positions of a Left revisionist such as Walter La Feber's work, with a traditionalist account such those by Arthur Schlesinger's.
Left Revisionist
The left revisionists are a group of historians that took a fairly radical dissent from the orthodox historical approach and instead broadened the perspective. Many of the mainstream argues have proposed that the U.S. acted in response to Soviet expansion efforts to further their influence...
For example, As Barton Bernstein writes in "American Foreign Policy and the Origins of the Cold War," Politics and Policies of the Truman Administration (New American Nation, N.d.):
American policy was neither so innocent nor so nonideological ... American leaders sought to promote their conceptions of national interest and their values even at the conscious risk of provoking Russia's fears about her security ... By overextending policy and power and refusing to accept Soviet interests, American policy-makers contributed to the Cold War ... There is evidence that Russian policies were reasonably cautious and conservative, and that there was at least a basis for accommodation.
LaFeber takes a similar approach to the attributing responsibility for the Cold War. He does not seem to favor either party and tries to interpret the factors at play with a level of objectivity. The rise of the cold war, argues LaFeber, was neither surprising nor remarkable; rather, the rapid decay of U.S.-Soviet relations in 1945, visible in the uneasy wartime relationship, was rooted in preceding decades of American hostility to the Bolshevik state (Bernstein, 1968). The United States, after dominant international position following World War II, was determined to establish a global economic system in which it administered. Therefore, having an alternative to the economic system in which the U.S. was the biggest proponent of was a significant threat to the country.
LaFeber argues and provides a large amount of evidence for, including Department of State Bulletins, that the U.S. planners had a strategy of developing an "open door" policy for other countries in which they could accept U.S.…
