Reference no: EM131965752

It is essential for us to understand some of the ways that historians have shifted their views in understanding the Cold War over time.

The 1950s was a period when the Cold War intensified, though its roots could be traced back to World War II. Historiographically the Cold War can be classified through several different historical periods. It began with the "traditionalists." After World War II American historians themselves used rhetoric that sounded like political leaders. It was the Soviet Union that was to blame for the evils in the world. The traditionalists believed America was passive in the Cold War until the Truman Doctrine and the Marshall Plan. Finally, they believed that the US was simply saving democracy in America and Western Europe. 

Next came the "revisionists" in the 1960s that were the mirror-image of the traditionalists. They argued that instead blame should be assigned to America. These views dominated until the late 1980s when "post-revisionists" emerged, in part with the opening of previously closed Soviet era documents. There have been a variety of post-revisionist interpretations, and so this school of thought does not have just one viewpoint.

On one side you have diplomatic historians like Arnold A. Offner who blamed Truman's personality traits (inexperience in foreign affairs, insecurity within himself, and a strident nationalism) that created tensions with Stalin. John Gaddis is one of the preeminent post-revisionists who has placed more blame on the brutal Soviet governments for the cause of the Cold War. He wrote in We Now Know, "Once Stalin wound up at the top in Moscow, and once it was clear his state would survive the war, then it looks . . . clear that there was going to be a cold war whatever the West did."

What are your thoughts on Cold War historical interpretations and how they have changed over time?