Historiography of the Cold War

As soon as the term "Cold War" was used to describe the tensions between the United States and the Soviet Union after World War II, people began to debate what caused these problems. Historians, scientists, and writers argued about who was to blame for the breakdown of friendly relations between the two countries. They also wondered if the conflict was unavoidable or if it could have been prevented.

Historians have different ideas about what the Cold War really was and what caused it. They try to understand what each side did and why. Even though there are many complicated ideas about the Cold War, scholars often group them into three main ways of thinking: "orthodox" views, "revisionism," and "post-revisionism." Many modern historians look at questions that are important to all these groups.

Pro-Soviet accounts

During the time of the Cold War, many historians in the Soviet Union were guided by the government's views. They often said that the West, especially the United States, was to blame for the tensions between the two sides. One famous historian from Britain, E. H. Carr, wrote a long history of the Soviet Union focusing on the 1920s. Carr and others believed that the Soviet Union was trying to help the world progress, while the United States stood in the way and started the conflict. Carr also thought that other historians were too quick to judge the Soviet Union using the values of Britain and the United States.

Orthodox accounts

The first way of understanding the Cold War came from American historians right after World War II. They believed the Soviet Union was to blame for the tensions between the United States and the Soviet Union. They thought the Soviet Union broke promises made at the Yalta Conference, put its own leaders in charge of countries in Eastern Europe, and tried to spread their ideas around the world. Because of this, the United States had to protect itself with plans like the Truman Doctrine and the Marshall Plan.

Another historian, Herbert Feis, agreed. He said the Soviet Union's actions in Eastern Europe started the Cold War. He also thought Franklin D. Roosevelt gave in too much to the Soviet leader at the Yalta Conference, which helped the Soviet Union gain more power in Europe. Even though this idea wasn’t as popular in the 1960s, it’s still important today.

Revisionism

The Vietnam War made some historians feel unhappy with how the United States acted, especially compared to the Viet Cong. A group called revisionists believed both the United States and the Soviet Union made mistakes that led to the Cold War. They disagreed with the idea that the United States just wanted to stop the spread of communism.

These revisionist historians thought the United States was more to blame for the end of peace after World War II. They said the United States wanted to keep its economic system strong and tried to control other countries to help its businesses grow. They also believed the Soviet Union was not trying to attack but was just trying to protect itself because it felt weak after the war.

Some revisionists even said the Cold War started much earlier, during conflicts in the 1800s between Russia and the United States. They also talked about how the United States used atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki near the end of World War II, suggesting this action was meant to scare the Soviet Union rather than just end the war with Japan.

Post-revisionism

"Post-revisionism" redirects here. For post-revisionism in the historiography of the French Revolution, see Historiography of the French Revolution.

After earlier ideas about the Cold War were challenged, new ways of thinking called "post-revisionism" started. These ideas accepted some points from earlier views but rejected many main claims. They tried to balance different sides, showing that both the United States and the Soviet Union shared responsibility for the start of the Cold War.

Important books on this topic include John Lewis Gaddis's work from 1972, which said neither side was fully to blame. Another scholar, Melvyn P. Leffler, argued that U.S. actions were driven by fears rather than Soviet actions alone. Over time, historians began to see the Cold War as a natural result of tensions between two powerful countries that had distrusted each other for a long time.

Since the 2000s, historians have used newly opened archives to study the Cold War from many angles, including culture and technology. They also look at how the Cold War affected areas beyond the United States and the Soviet Union, especially the Third World. Some historians now study emotions and personal relationships between leaders to understand political decisions better.

Espionage

Main articles: Cold War espionage and List of Eastern Bloc agents in the United States

Further information: History of espionage

After the year 1990, new memories and records helped people learn more about secret work during the Cold War. Experts are now looking at how the start, middle, and end of the Cold War were affected by the secret actions of the United States, the Soviet Union, and other important countries. They also study how each side saw the other, using secret information that is now public.