Ideological Conflict and Historical Perspectives

Introduction

An ideological rift between the two victorious protagonists and also functioned within states for that matter. The two protagonists being the United States of America and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics had conflicted ideologies along in the lines of political, military, social and economic spheres which was far from any stereotypical war but continued peacefully but with a subdued aggression which felt strange as it did not have any blood spilling or plenty dead. From 1947 to 1991, this war continued by the two set of actors in the economic system; the capitalists and the communists, who vehemently opposed the route of capitalism could emancipate the economic and political structure at any cost. This essay will look at the three stages of historiography of cold war; The traditionalist theories, the Revisionist theories and the Post-World war theories devised and studied by historians and the major reasons as to why such argued and diverse perspective exists. If you need assistance with history dissertation help, and understanding the intricacies of all these theories and perspectives, all our experts are here in place to guide you through the whole process.

The conflicts rapidly fired after the War wherein the two superpowers were competing in this bipolar world rotting for their own systematic and superior ideologies concerning the political and economical structure that may sustain their position, however, the Soviet with their military strength and the USA with its technological strength stood before one another posing potential threat and developed such an adversarial strength.

Traditional Views

Now the entire period of the cold war saw speculations and historians tried to detangle the intricacies by forwarding the two principle theories, one of which is the orthodox view the entire obligation is shouldered on the Russians which are again completely rejected by the Revisionist approach, which is the second school of thought. The revisionist argue that the Soviet Union was not exclusively liable for the continuing war but it was merely a reaction of the actions taken by the two superpowers. These views were concocted while the Cold War was in progression.

Orthodox views

The primary view was that the Soviet Union intended to expand their power so much so that the contention goes that the Soviet Union had desire to enslave Eastern Europe, undermine Western Europe and rule arising post-pilgrim countries through philosophy. According to Arthur Schlesinger, Jr., he contended powerfully that the admixture of Leninism and Communism turned Russia into an extremist state and hence molded Russia to shun any type of community action with the global network . Subsequently, the very commencement of the Cold War can basically be situated in Russian recalcitrance, stubbornness and visually impaired compliance to belief system. This visually impaired submission made it unimaginable for Russia to have any

SOSHUM Jurnal Sosial dan Humaniora [Journal of Social Sciences and Humanities] Volume 9, Number 2, 2019 p-ISSN. 2088-2262 e-ISSN. 2580-5622
Falode, Adewunmi & Yakubu, Moses. (2019). A New Historiography of the Origins of the Cold War. Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences. 9. 100-111. 10.31940/soshum.v9i2.1237.

important tranquil relationship with the West following the Second World War. One should call attention to here again that the Orthodox presumptions depend completely on the perspectives on western administrators and vocation negotiators who had direct dealings with the Soviets or have served in the limit that brought them near the Russians. The Americans merely reacted to the expanist attitude and Stalin’s aggressive, undemocratic and dictatorial behavior stood in the way of preventing the Cold War from developing to that extent.

Revisionist Views

This view interpreted the perspective of growing and developing cold war in a different light which differs completely from putting the Soviet Union at stake. La Feber had argued more than once that the ultimate core of the war was not new but was suppressed way before the Second World war even started. He speaks on the lines of a manipulative American control in exercise which was ultimately framed to keep the Russians along the lines by framing policies that were exclusive of the Russians. The conflicts between the two arose out of similar access by the both the USA and the Russians. Where the Americans being a federal structure vouched for open trade sharply in contradiction with the centralized functioning of Russia, believing in a close trade system. This conflict was not new and was seen to have spurred in the 1890s were there was sharp conflict with regard to “Internationalism and Isolationism” However, according to the American Hisorian, LaFeber, the primary move of the Americans was to design the political structure and exeute policies in such a way that would undermine Russia’s potential and would lead to isolate them so much so that they would never be at par with the American superpower.

America had joined the United Nations and willingly contributed to their funds just so they could build a strong stand and be able to dominate that front emphasized by Gar Alperovitz. He also emphasized on the intention borne by America on creating a soling foreign policy and relationship wherein he didn’t find a suitable explanation against America defeating the already defeated Japan by the Atomic bomb, which was nothing but a show of strength to the Soviet Union.Robert Tucker contended that post-1945 USA expansionism was recognizable to Washington's over the top force and its assurance to utilize this capacity to guarantee its own specific form of a suitable worldwide request however, William Appleman always puts the onus on the “Open-door strategy” approach taken up by the Americans where ventures were permitted uniformity of chance with contending interests in China. Williams contended that this strategy was later globalized in light of the fact that USA policymakers and business elites were of the firm conviction that America's homegrown prosperity relies on such supported, ever increasing abroad monetary extension.

Robert P. Hager Jr. (2012) Walter LaFeber: America, Russia, and the Cold War 1945–2006, Democracy and Security, 8:1, 108-113, DOI: 10.1080/17419166.2012.653765
Supra 2
Alperovitz, G., & Bird, K. (1996). A Theory of Cold War Dynamics: U. S. Policy, Germany, and the Bomb. The History Teacher, 29(3), 281-300. doi:10.2307/494546
Supra 1

The Post-Revisionist School

Post-revisionist ideologies try to set up and associate the roots of the Cold war dependent on the exercise of power of both America and the Soviet Union. Researchers of this influence consider the to be as so boundlessly complex that no speculation about who was at fault will get the job done and a general shifting of onus is extremely vague and an act of ignorance. The primary idea is to build a rope in between both orthodox school of thought and revisionist school. There are multiple loopholes which must be identified on understanding both the approaches which have been attempted by Robert Gilpin, wherein he stressed on the fact that in the fight between breaking the broken a major gap had been built over time. The Post revisionism attempts to make a scaffold between the conventionality and revisionism by looking at the lacunaes. The fall of German and Japan had selfish interests of both USA and USSR.

There was visible shift in security concerns but not one force could actually guarantee this as it were expanded the weakness of the other, making it intensify its own endeavors. This battle required the solidification and extension of the security lines and the idea of these lines were characterized by the varying uneven circumstances of the superpowers

Melvin Leffler had contended that the after effects of the global war and the framework that may evolve in a way that may intensify the relationship in order to guarantee a suitable method that could stabilize heir existential endurance. It was these measures, such as having overpowering military predominance, prevalence in mechanical limit and in just as control of the admittance to crude materials and denying the materials to forthcoming adversaries, that drove her on an irreversible impact course with the Soviet Union. It was more so because both the superpowers had their own definite aims on polarized goals and ambitions calling for such conflicted position.

Gaddi had identified and upheld several reasons that led to this war, mainly the already existing historic tussle before 1941 where the major factor was an absolute absence of communication and any recognition. The delay in opening up a front led to the battle with Nazis and strongly withholding the nuclear technology.

Conclusion

The origins of cold war is extremely contradictory and controversial as many historians attempted to look at it through different perspectives but there were multiple political motives, selfish interests and ultimate greed to gather control and power over the dominion but different ideological notions were there and are also coming up. Newer paradigms are build with the Structural paradigm, historians are sill discovering the ultimate responsibility bearer but that seems to be an ongoing task for now.

A Preponderance of Power: National Security, the Truman Administration, and the Cold War, Leffler, Melvyn P.
Ibid
Gaddis, John Lewis.. The United States and the origins of the cold war, 1941-1947. New York : Columbia University Press, c2000. http://hdl.handle.net/2027/heb.00094.0001.001.

REFERENCES

SOSHUM Jurnal Sosial dan Humaniora [Journal of Social Sciences and Humanities] Volume 9, Number 2, 2019 p-ISSN. 2088-2262 e-ISSN. 2580-5622

Falode, Adewunmi & Yakubu, Moses. (2019). A New Historiography of the Origins of the Cold War. Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences. 9. 100-111. 10.31940/soshum.v9i2.1237.

Robert P. Hager Jr. (2012) Walter LaFeber: America, Russia, and the Cold War 1945–2006, Democracy and Security, 8:1, 108-113, DOI: 10.1080/17419166.2012.653765

Alperovitz, G., & Bird, K. (1996). A Theory of Cold War Dynamics: U. S. Policy, Germany, and the Bomb. The History Teacher, 29(3), 281-300. doi:10.2307/494546

A Preponderance of Power: National Security, the Truman Administration, and the Cold War, Leffler, Melvyn P. 712 Stanford, Stanford University Press 1992

Gaddis, John Lewis.. The United States and the origins of the cold war, 1941-1947. New York : Columbia University Press, c2000. http://hdl.handle.net/2027/heb.00094.0001.001.

Take a deeper dive into Exploring the Standard of Care with our additional resources.