Aside from the numerous run on sentences which continually made it difficult to decipher the authors point throughout the article, overall the historiography follows along with a number of the standards in Graff and Birkenstein’s book. Federico Romero eloquently balances the opposing arguments among historians in current day debate, as well as effectively conveying his own argument with only a few structural components which impede the reader from understanding the writing clearly at first. At the center of Romero’s article is the question of how historians define the Cold War, what exactly is it, and how can historians effectively study it without creating convoluted argument with which becomes over complicated. This questions eventually …show more content…
He brings two parties to the forefront of his argument; those who are inclusive, and pluralistic in their interpretation of the Cold War, and those who believe an inclusive interpretation detracts from the history and morphs the Cold War into an abstract idea rather than an event which lasted approximately forty years. Proponents of a more broad interpretation of the Cold War believe that historians will inevitably end up creating an argument which envelopes a wide range of global and international history than they were initially expecting. The former argument suggests that by creating such a diverse definition of the Cold War, it becomes difficult to draw a line and determine what the Cold War actually significantly contributed to. Romero interprets the Cold War through a pluralistic viewpoint, using Odd Arne Westad’s metaphor of the elephant, essentially a beast which is large and complex, and cannot be reduced to one single component since all parts of the elephant are vital to the creature. The Cold War is a complex event, to deny so would be ignorant and alter the narrative, instead historians should decide which parts of the narrative are truly Cold War history and what the Cold War may have influenced but ultimately did not …show more content…
This question relied upon how the previous question was answered, because if we view the Cold War as simply two ideologies vying for power and control, many aspects of the Cold War are missing, specifically in this case, Romero argues Europe. The centrality of the Cold War seems to have become lost due to in part because more information is being provided as more and more documents are declassified, but also because of how historians define it. The elephant definition of the Cold War Romero adheres to requires historians to decipher what is at the heart of the beast, at the center of the problem is one underlying factor. That factor for Romero is Europe, which he believes to be the central point for the entirety of the Cold War even as its nature morphed over time to a balance of power between nations. Romero challenges conventional thought that the third world was perhaps the most impacted region of the world, and therefore a centerpiece of the Cold War. He does not deny that the Cold War effected those regions of the world, but does claim that the events of the Cold War did not determine the future events which would unfold later, merely sparked it. This section of Romero’s argument is where I believe he becomes confusing and difficult to read, because at times when he begins summarizing events, his argument
During the 20th century, the rise of communism sparked rage in people throughout the world. More towards the end of the 1900's the fall of communism and dictatorships was just the beginning of what would eventually be a large democratic change for several countries. 1989: Democratic Revolutions at the Cold War's End, speaks about the change brought to several different countries from the 1980's-1990's and plans to show "the global transformations that marked the end of the cold war and shaped the era in which we live"(Pg V). During the cold war, communist had power and control over a large area and spread communism throughout several continents. This book specifically hits on six different studies of where communism and dictatorship affected these areas and what they did to stop it. Poland, Philippines, Chile, South Africa, Ukraine, and China throughout the end of the 20th century created revolutionary movements which brought them all one step closer to freeing themselves and creating democratic change.
Isaacs J (2008). ‘Cold War: For Forty-five Years the World Held its Breath’. Published by Abacus, 2008.
Within this controversial topic, two authors provide their sides of the story to whom is to blame and/or responsible for the “Cold War.” Authors Arnold A. Offner and John Lewis Gaddis duck it out in this controversial situation as each individual lead the readers to believe a certain aspect by divulging certain persuading information. However, although both sides have given historical data as substance for their claim, it is nothing more than a single sided personal perception of that particular piece of information; thus, leaving much room for interpretations by the reader/s. Finding the ...
Discussions of the causes of the Cold War are often divisive, creating disparate ideological camps that focus the blame in different directions depending on the academic’s political disposition. One popular argument places the blame largely on the American people, whose emphasis on “strength over compromise” and their deployment of the atomic bomb in the Second World War’s Pacific theatre apparently functioned as two key catalysts to the conflict between US and Soviet powers. This revisionist approach minimizes Stalin’s forceful approach and history of violent leadership throughout World War 2, and focuses instead on President Harry Truman’s apparent insensitivity to “reasonable Soviet security anxieties” in his quest to impose “American interests on the world.” Revisionist historians depict President Truman as a “Cold War monger,” whose unjustified political use of the atomic bomb and ornery diplomatic style forced Russia into the Cold War to oppose the spread of a looming capitalist democratic monopoly. In reality, Truman’s responsibility for the Cold War and the atomic bomb drop should be minimized.
During the late 1940's and the 1950's, the Cold War became increasingly tense. Each side accused the other of wanting to rule the world (Walker 388). Each side believed its political and economic systems were better than the other's. Each strengthened its armed forces. Both sides viewed the Cold War as a dispute between right and wron...
Odd Arne Westad, Director of the Cold War Studies Centre at the London School of Economics and Political Science, explains how the Cold War “shaped the world we live in today — its politics, economics, and military affairs“ (Westad, The Global Cold War, 1). Furthermore, Westad continues, “ the globalization of the Cold War during the last century created foundations” for most of the historic conflicts we see today. The Cold War, asserts Westad, centers on how the Third World policies of the two twentieth-century superpowers — the United States and the Soviet Union — escalates to antipathy and conflict that in the end helped oust one world power while challenging the other. This supplies a universal understanding on the Cold War (Westad, The Global Cold War, 1).
The Soviet Union began to view the United States as a threat to communism, and the United States began to view the Soviet Union as a threat to democracy. On March 12, 1947, Truman gave a speech in which he argued that the United States should support nations trying to resist Soviet imperialism. Truman and his advisors created a foreign policy that consisted of giving reconstruction aid to Europe, and preventing Russian expansionism. These foreign policy decisions, as well as his involvement in the usage of the atomic bomb, raise the question of whether or not the Cold War can be blamed on Truman. Supporting the view that Truman was responsible for the Cold War, Arnold Offner argues that Truman’s parochialism and nationalism caused him to make contrary foreign policy decisions without regard to other nations, which caused the intense standoff between the Soviet Union and America that became the Cold War (Offner 291)....
New York: Oxford University Press, 2000. Gregory, Ross. A. Cold War America: 1946 to 1990. New York, NY: Facts on File, 2003. McQuaid, Kim.
There have been many attempts to explain the origins of the Cold War that developed between the capitalist West and the communist East after the Second World War. Indeed, there is great disagreement in explaining the source for the Cold War; some explanations draw on events pre-1945; some draw only on issues of ideology; others look to economics; security concerns dominate some arguments; personalities are seen as the root cause for some historians. So wide is the range of the historiography of the origins of the Cold War that is has been said "the Cold War has also spawned a war among historians, a controversy over how the Cold War got started, whether or not it was inevitable, and (above all) who bears the main responsibility for starting it" (Hammond 4). There are three main schools of thought in the historiography: the traditional view, known alternatively as the orthodox or liberal view, which finds fault lying mostly with the Russians and deems security concerns to be the root cause of the Cold War; the revisionist view, which argues that it is, in fact, the United States and the West to blame for the Cold War and not the Russians, and cites economic open-door interests for spawning the Cold War; finally, the post-revisionist view which finds fault with both sides in the conflict and points to issues raised both by the traditionalists as well as the revisionists for combining to cause the Cold War. While strong arguments are made by historians writing from the traditionalist school, as well as those writing from the revisionist school, I claim that the viewpoint of the post-revisionists is the most accurate in describing the origins of the Cold War.
Outline of Essay About the Origins of the Cold War OUTLINE: Introduction- 1. Definition of ‘Cold War’ and the Powers involved 2. Perceived definition of ‘start of Cold War’ 3. Iron Curtain Speech, Truman Doctrine and Berlin Blockade as significant events that caused strife between both powers, but which triggering off the start of the Cold War Body- 1. Iron Curtain Speech (1946) - A warning of Soviet influence beyond the acknowledged Eastern Europe - Churchill’s belief that the idea of a balance in power does not appeal to the Soviets - Wants Western democracies to stand together in prevention of further
The United States was not willing to accept defeat, although at a time like the Cold War you can never be too comfortable. The Soviet Union and the United States were at a nuclear stand off, always prepared to fire. Paranoia ran rampant throughout the countries.
“When the people fear the government, there is tyranny;when the government fears the people,there is liberty” -Thomas Jefferson. The reason why I chose this quote is that the Northern Korean and South Korean civilians were afraid of the government so there was tyranny. Tyranny is cruel and oppressive government or rule.
Tomkinson, John L. (2008) The Cold War: Themes in Twentieth Century World History for the International Baccalaureate. 3rd edition. Athens: Anagnosis.
With the fall of Nazi Germany in 1945 only two ideologies remained to duke it out on the world stage. History since this date would be largely dictated by the actions of the communist Soviet Union and the liberal-democratic United States, and the Cold War would be remembered largely as the result of two contrasting and powerful ideological empires edging one another out for worldwide dominance. People, when considering the gross scale events of the Cold War, were largely not influential. Whether it be the Cuban Missile Crisis, Korean and Vietnam wars, or simply the flow of daily life in both superpowers, almost every significant event can be tied to the actions of small groups of governmental officials. When considering the defining events of the initiation, the continuation, and the conclusion of the Cold War, all accounts suggest that the Cold War was almost exclusively the result of top-down decision-making.
The time period between 1945 and 1991 is considered to be the era of the Cold War. The Cold War, known as the conflict between the United States and the Soviet Union, each known during this time as the “super powers”. This conflict consisted of the differing attitudes on the ideological, political, and military interests of these two states and their allies, exte nded around the globe. A common political debate covers the issue of who, if anyone won the Cold War. Many believe the United States won the Cold War since (it) had resulted in the ultimate collapse of the Soviet Union. While others are to believe the United States had not won it as much as the Soviet Union had lost it since they feel Reagan did not end the Cold War, but that he prolonged it (Baylis & Smith, 2001.) This has lead me to believe that there is no winner, only losers of the cold war. The cold war for the Soviet Union was to ensure security, block out capitalism, gain power, and improve their economy. While, on the other hand the United States just wanted to stop the spread of communism, which they felt, would spread rapidly throughout the world if they did not put an end to it soon. Both the United States and the Soviet Union wanted to avoid WWIII in the process of trying to achieve their goals.