Cold War Perspectives: Revisionism vs. Traditionalism

Introduction: What Is a Cold War?

The term "cold war" refers to a type of conflict that does not involve any direct military action — in the modern lexicon, this is sometimes described as conflict with no military interventions and no "boots on the ground." However, though the military does not engage the enemy directly, it is often involved in many indirect pursuits against the target, including gathering intelligence, building capabilities, conducting espionage, and sometimes fighting a proxy war. Not just the military is involved in fighting a cold war: the economies of two competing countries can be weaponized against each other alongside various political strategies. Propaganda campaigns are also instituted domestically in an attempt to align populations with the aims of their leaders.

"The Cold War" was the most extreme example of such a form of conflict in history. The United States and the Soviet Union — two great world superpowers — battled over international influence, economic activity, the development of science and technology, and ideological positions. The differences in those ideological positions generated significantly different historical accounts of the events that unfolded. For example, those sympathetic to the Soviet Union might view the circumstances through a lens in which the U.S. was the aggressor, while someone from a U.S. perspective might see the opposite. This analysis compares the position of a left revisionist historian — Walter LaFeber — with a traditionalist account, such as those offered by Arthur Schlesinger.

Left Revisionist Interpretations

The left revisionists are a group of historians who took a fairly radical departure from the orthodox historical approach and instead broadened the perspective. Many mainstream arguments proposed that the U.S. acted in response to Soviet expansion efforts and condensed U.S. aims into phrases such as "acting to preserve freedom and democracy." However, there are always two sides to every story, and some historians chose to step outside their own biases and widen their objectivity. As Barton Bernstein writes in "American Foreign Policy and the Origins of the Cold War," collected in Politics and Policies of the Truman Administration:

"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." (Bernstein, 1968)

LaFeber takes a similar approach in attributing responsibility for the Cold War. He does not appear to favor either party and attempts to interpret the factors at play with a degree of objectivity. The rise of the Cold War, LaFeber argues, was neither surprising nor remarkable. Rather, the rapid decay of U.S.-Soviet relations in 1945 — already visible in the uneasy wartime relationship — was rooted in preceding decades of American hostility toward the Bolshevik state (Bernstein, 1968). The United States, having achieved a dominant international position following World War II, was determined to establish a global economic system that it would administer. An alternative economic model therefore posed a significant threat to American interests.

Conclusion

Whatever the case may be regarding the culprit of the Cold War, it is important to note that it is critical to humanity that the conflict did not end in some form of nuclear escalation. The historical narrative of what actually occurred, however, remains largely open to debate, and there is a wealth of perspectives through which the matter can be examined.

There is first the traditionalist approach, established by academics such as Arthur Schlesinger, who attributed much of the Cold War to Russian expansion efforts. Many have criticized this approach as inherently biased and dependent on the official government narrative. The revisionist accounts, by contrast, illustrate how U.S. hegemony pursued through economic expansion was a major source of the underlying tension. Within the revisionist camp there are also varying degrees of blame assigned to U.S. foreign policy, ranging from accusations of deliberate global domination to arguments that the U.S. made a series of strategic blunders.

Although Schlesinger's account differs significantly from many revisionist accounts, he was correct in asserting that the understanding of a major historical event — such as the Cold War — can only benefit from the consideration of multiple perspectives.

References

Bernstein, B. (1968). Reviewed work(s): America, Russia, and the Cold War, 1945–1966 by Walter LaFeber. The American Historical Review, 133–114.

New American Nation. (n.d.). Revisionism — Left revisionism. Retrieved from New American Nation: http://www.americanforeignrelations.com/O-W/Revisionism-Left-revisionism.html

Schlesinger, A. (1967). Origins of the Cold War. Foreign Affairs, 22–52.

Schlesinger, A. (1986). The Cycle of American History.