Historiography of the Cold War

Ten or fifteen years ago, IB students (especially in so-called American" schools) were taught basic lessons about the Historiography of the Cold War. They were taught that the original interpretation of the Cold War is called orthodox, and its thesis is: The Origins of the Cold War were the in the actions of the Soviet Union: Stalin broke the agreements he made at Yalta, particularly on Poland, and this revealed Soviet expansionist tendencies, provoking a defensive reaction by the West. A principal proponent of this theory would be Thomas A. Bailey. Thomas A. Bailey wrote a famous high school textbook for AP American history, and the book is pro-American. In the early years, many IB schools were mixing IB history with AP History, so the book is well-known amongst IB students, especially at American schools. In the 1960s, many American intellectuals (including professors and historians) became disenchanted with US Foreign policy, and there emerged a New Left among American historians, whose thesis was revisionist: The USA wanted to dominate the post-war world, so it was aggressive towards the Soviet Union. Americans were trying to establish an empire, particularly an economic empire. Actually, the USA had been expanding and empire-building from the early 18th Century, so the Cold War was a continuation of American expansionism. A principal proponent of this theory would be William Appleman Williams. In other words, according to this type of thinking, the first school of thought, orthodox, primarily blames the Soviet Union. The second school of thought, revisionist, primarily blames the USA. We could summarize the orthodox school of thought as it was the pinko commies fault! We could summarize the revisionist school of thought as it was the yanqui imperialists fault! As Mei-ling pointed out: arent there historians who are more balanced? Yes, according to Wikipedia, Ms. Walker, and Tagore, there now comes a third school of thought: post-revisionist: According to this school of thought, mistakes were made on both sides, both sides were characterized by fear and misunderstanding, and we cannot blame the Cold War on one side or the other. I would classify Martin Walker in this school, although John Lewis Gaddis claims (or at least once claimed) to be in the post-revisionist school, too. If this conversation bores you, you can stop right here. However, I cannot teach this because I dont believe it. First of all it is terribly USAcentered (although Martin Walker grew up in the UK, he lives in the US, and all the other historians are American). There is no consideration of British historians, Norwegian historians, or Russian historians, for example. Secondly, I believe this fiction has been invented by the American right, including Gaddis, to make their position seem reasonable. Notice that Williams and the New Left are a reaction to the American establishment, and then Gaddis in turn is a reaction to the New Left.

Furthermore, IMHO, John Lewis Gaddis is clearly an apologist for the American establishment. If you google him, you will see him beaming after receiving his Humanities Medal from his pal George W. Bush. Thats a worrying sign to me, but even worse: I dont like his books. He takes liberties with the truth. For example, after the Vietnamese coup against Diem in 1963, Gaddis claims that American officials were shocked to learn that Diem had been killed. But American officials organized the coup! Lastly, the reference to Gaddis as a post-revisionist is a reference to the books he wrote in the 1970s. At that time, maybe you could think of Gaddis as a post-revisionist. However, since then he has written many more books. Lately, he has revealed his true colors: he is a fervent anti-communist, and, I would argue, a triumphalist. In essence, in books like Now We Know, he is arguing that the Americans won the Cold War because they had the better economic and political system: Freedom versus Communism, and the Soviets lost the Cold War because they oppressed their own people. There is some truth to his arguments, but I think his view is far too simplistic, and I have doubts about the political and economic system of a country which has been the richest country in the world for more than 60 years, and yet still has extreme poverty among its own citizens.

p.s. I apologize for using the word "American" to refer exclusively to the USA, but it is so common that it is hard to avoid.