The "traditional, or "orthodox" interpretation of the origins of the Cold War, at least in American historiography, was born in the midst of the conflict itself. This interpretation emphasized the aggressive and expansionist nature of Communism, which was assumed to be a major threat to the Western-style democracies. In short, these writers, who included such intellectuals as George Kennan (also a member of the US diplomatic corps and an important foreign policy analyst), journalist Walter...
The "traditional, or "orthodox" interpretation of the origins of the Cold War, at least in American historiography, was born in the midst of the conflict itself. This interpretation emphasized the aggressive and expansionist nature of Communism, which was assumed to be a major threat to the Western-style democracies. In short, these writers, who included such intellectuals as George Kennan (also a member of the US diplomatic corps and an important foreign policy analyst), journalist Walter Lippmann, and historian Thomas Bailey, blamed not just the nature of communism but Soviet premier Joseph Stalin himself. They emphasized his duplicity on the question of democratic elections in Poland in the immediate aftermath of World War II. According to this interpretation, which again emerged in the midst of the Cold War itself, only firm action on the part of the United States in the form of the Truman Doctrine prevented the spread of Communism throughout Europe. Stalin's aggressiveness, like that of Hitler, was assumed to be almost unlimited except in the face of force. Subsequent interpretations, especially from historians who have access to documents from Soviet/Russian archives, had shown that Stalin was actually quite cautious and somewhat fearful of war with the United States. But early historians and other interpreters of the conflict didn't--perhaps couldn't--see it that way. Even today there are many historians who accept the broad outlines of this interpretation.
No comments:
Post a Comment