Historiography of the Cold War

The Cold War, one of the most defining geopolitical events of the 20th century, has
generated extensive historical debate and controversy. At its core, the Cold War was a
prolonged period of political tension, military rivalry, and ideological conflict between the
United States and the Soviet Union, lasting from the end of World War II in 1945 until the
early 1990s. Though no direct large-scale conflict occurred between the two superpowers,
the era was marked by proxy wars, nuclear arms races, propaganda battles, and intense
diplomatic hostility. The historiography of the Cold War—the study of how historians have
interpreted and debated its origins and development—remains a crucial part of
understanding this complex conflict.

Origins of the Cold War

The origins of the Cold War can be traced back to the uneasy alliance formed during World
War II between the United States, the Soviet Union, and the United Kingdom. This alliance
was primarily aimed at defeating Nazi Germany and the Axis powers. However, despite
their cooperation, the ideological divide between capitalist democracy (represented by the
United States) and communist totalitarianism (represented by the Soviet Union) remained
stark. The alliance was more a matter of necessity than of shared values.

After the defeat of Germany in 1945, the alliance quickly unraveled. The United States and
the Soviet Union emerged as global superpowers, but with fundamentally opposing
worldviews. The Soviets were determined to secure their borders by installing friendly
governments in Eastern Europe, while the Americans viewed this as an aggressive
expansion of communism. As mutual suspicion deepened, a climate of hostility
developed, eventually giving rise to what is now known as the Cold War.

Early Cold War Historiography (Traditionalist/Orthodox School)

The earliest historical interpretations of the Cold War emerged during the late 1940s and
1950s and are commonly referred to as the orthodox or traditionalist school. This school
largely reflects the Western, especially American, viewpoint of the time. Historians and
policymakers from this perspective laid the blame for the Cold War squarely on the Soviet
Union.

Key figures in this school include policymakers such as Winston Churchill, Anthony
Eden, George Kennan, and Dean Acheson, as well as historians like Herbert Feis, Arthur
Schlesinger Jr., and William H. McNeill. They argued that the aggressive nature of Soviet
foreign policy under Joseph Stalin was the primary cause of the Cold War. According to
their interpretation, the Soviet Union sought to expand its influence across Europe and
beyond in pursuit of global communist domination. In their view, the United States was
merely responding defensively to Soviet provocation to protect the independence of
democratic nations and preserve world peace.

For instance, Arthur Schlesinger Jr. described the Cold War as a courageous and
necessary defense by freedom-loving people against communist aggression. Similarly,
Herbert Feis portrayed the Soviet Union as an expansionist power, exploiting the post-war
vacuum in Europe to spread totalitarianism. These traditionalist historians presented the
United States as essentially innocent, only taking measures to contain the spread of
communism.

Revisionist Historiography (1960s–1970s)

By the 1960s and 1970s, a new wave of historians, known as the revisionist school, began
to challenge the traditionalist view. Influenced by the Vietnam War and a more critical view
of American foreign policy, revisionist historians argued that the United States was not a
passive actor but an active participant in escalating the Cold War.

Historians such as William Appleman Williams, Gar Alperovitz, and Gabriel Kolko
emphasized the role of American economic and strategic interests in provoking conflict.
They argued that the United States sought to create a global capitalist order and viewed the
Soviet Union’s attempts to protect its sphere of influence as a threat. According to
revisionists, the U.S. used its economic dominance to pressure and manipulate other
nations, often intervening in foreign affairs to promote capitalism and prevent the spread of
socialism, even if it meant undermining democracies or supporting authoritarian regimes.

In particular, Gar Alperovitz controversially claimed that the United States dropped
atomic bombs on Japan not just to end World War II, but to intimidate the Soviet Union and
gain an upper hand in post-war negotiations.

Post-Revisionist Historiography (1980s–Present)

In response to the polarized views of traditionalists and revisionists, a third school of

thought emerged in the 1980s known as the post-revisionist school. This approach
sought to provide a more balanced and nuanced understanding of the Cold War by
considering the actions and motivations of both superpowers.
Prominent post-revisionist historians include John Lewis Gaddis, Melvyn Leffler, and
Marc Trachtenberg. Gaddis, in particular, argued that while Soviet policies under Stalin
were indeed aggressive and repressive, the United States was also guided by its own
strategic and ideological interests. Post-revisionists maintain that the Cold War was not
the result of a single party's actions, but rather a complex interaction of misperceptions,
security concerns, political ideologies, and historical circumstances.

With the fall of the Soviet Union and the opening of Soviet archives in the 1990s, Cold War
historiography has entered a new phase, often referred to as the "new Cold War history."
These newer studies rely on previously unavailable documents and materials from Russia
and Eastern Europe, offering deeper insights into Soviet intentions and strategies.

Conclusion

The Cold War remains one of the most controversial and intensely debated topics in
modern history. The historiography of the Cold War reveals much about how historical
narratives are shaped by the political context in which they are written. Traditionalists
blamed Soviet aggression; revisionists highlighted American imperialism; post-revisionists
attempted to strike a balance between the two. Today, historians continue to reassess the
Cold War in light of newly available evidence and evolving global perspectives.